The Democrats redefine the phrase “court-packing” to meet their needs
Of course they do – because they believe (correctly IMHO) that they can get away with it. They do it in unison, even though it’s a preposterous notion to use the phrase in this novel way – to mean appointing someone to the Court to make a conservative majority, and yet to keep the number of justices at nine.
Meanwhile, they themselves strongly contemplate a future in which they will actively court-pack in the sense that the phrase has always been used:
One of the reasons why trying to discuss things with Democrats is a frustrating waste of time is their penchant for redefining key words and concepts on the fly to fit whatever item on their agenda they’re pushing that day. So, in this case, ‘court packing’ is a bad thing, therefore a Republican president using his constitution-granted authority to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate is ‘court packing’. In fact, pretty much anything the GOP does to put originalist judges on the bench is ‘court packing.’ And so the phrase, completely torn away from its historical context, is now just another flaccid pejorative used by crybaby Democrats who are unhappy about getting their asses handed to them over and over again. For example here’s sob sister Dick Durbin:
“…the American people have watched the Republicans packing the court over the last three and a half years. And they brag about it. They?ve taken every vacancy and filled it.”
Imagine that! The gall of these Republicans, filling vacancies. In other words, packing the Court is now nominating judges to fill vacancies, if the judges aren’t of the leftist persuasion. Apparently, leftism is the natural and correct state of SCOTUS, and anything different is a violation.
A rhetorical approach like this can succeed only if two things are present: a dumbed-down electorate too ignorant to understand the principles involved, and a unitary MSM that doesn’t include a sizeable enough and vocal enough segment of journalists who are not onboard and who will challenge the prevailing agree-on message. The right can rant all it wants in our hermetically sealed echo chamber, but will anyone who isn’t already on the right hear it?
The Humpty Dumpty Democrats and reporters say [emphasis mine]:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
“They do it in unison,”
That’s one aspect of the Democrats I continue to be amazed at: their message discipline. Every damn one of them says the same damn thing over and over again…truly they must be the Borg in disguise. Even Klobuchar today went off on the current D line of “Trump killed all those people from the virus!” Never mind she was in the ACB hearing and it was totally irrelevant….got to keep saying the same thing.
On topic: A variation on their “court packing” line is that the GOP has been “packing” the courts with white people and not appointing any one of color. I’ve heard that now for at least a week by many different Dems.
physicsguy:
Trump the Murderer is something I think they have determined is their most effective approach. And although it makes no sense in terms of the facts, they will continue to say it and lots of people believe it. Most of my friends are fully onboard with it, even the people who are very fact-oriented and smart.
It’s quite something to see, and impervious to argument.
The Dems are so, so dishonest but this type of stuff works on some people. It reminds me of (in broad terms) how people like George Floyd and Travyon Martin are painted as secular saints.
This type of dishonesty is the grist for the #walkaway movement.
Physicsguy, I would think that lock-step-speak would redound against them. The fact that it does not is depressing.
I suppose I am an old curmudgeon. At least I am old, and a curmudgeon by today’s standards. Anyway, for me this business of redefining words became endemic, and systemic, when the fine old word “gay” was usurped to have a completely unrelated meaning. If you accept that, anything is “on the table” to indulge in politico speech. There I said it. I guess that makes me homophobic. Whoa! Can I say that? Must I say anti-gay? Since invented words are in style, how about “gayphobic”?
Speaking of invented nonsense words, how about “mansplaining”? What was the other one; “Manspreading”? The March Hare would feel pretty much at home at some current tea parties.
To go along with the “court packing” redefinition, they claim that expanding the Court and then appointing more leftists to swamp the current numbers is “depoliticizing” the Court. It’s exactly the opposite; it would turn the Court into a super (leftist) legislature contrary to the Constitution.
That mentality is absolutely bog standard among partisan Democrats. As far as they’re concerned, the courts are theirs, the schools are theirs, the media is theirs, elective offices are theirs. Any beachheads by people other than them are thefts.
lol. The Grassley and the Republicans were accusing Obama of court-packing when he signaled he was going to nominate 3 empty seats to the 11 seat D.C. court of appeals.
The Republicans made the case for shrinking the Supreme Court size when Obama nominated Garland. They said keeping the court at 8 was just fine — when they feared Clinton would win in order to deny her any appointments.
The new norm for Republicans seems be that in order to get a SCOTUS nominee actually confirmed one must be in control of both the Presidency and the Senate.
SCOTUS is entirely politicized. It’s war. There is nothing in the constitution that can prevent expanding, shrinking, or changing norms to suit your party’s current situation. Might makes right, norms be damned.
With this comment I’m out. Enjoy your bubble.
“Redefine” IS, in fact, the name of the Democrats’ game (along with remaking the rules):
https://americanmind.org/post/coup-who/
jes:
Don’t let the door hit you in the Asp, it might bite you.
Recall that that RBG replaced a pro-Life judge. So that was Court packing, which ACB is undoing.
jes: “It’s war”.
We know. Your side made it clear for the last 4 years.
Jes, Jes, we hardly knew you. Oh, well.
The demokrats lie because they know with certainty that the media (the propaganda organ of the demokrat party) will air those soundbites and ignore any comments that contradict the lies or any comments that are truthful.
If the dems and media had met in a smoke filled room and planned all of this, the result would be the same; an incessant barrage of lies, deceit and Trump-is- Hitler, from the media.
The dems and the media have the mechanism of propaganda all worked out; Joseph Goebbels would proud.
Humpty Dumpty is right as far as that goes, the meanings of words do not inhere within them. They mean what people want them to mean. If you expect to convince people by reaching common understanding, you would do well to use meanings that your listeners agree with.
But that is not what the Left is doing. What the Left is really doing is either a) lying or b) thinking that using different words will redefine reality. Calling a zone “gun free” will make it one. Packing the court will “depoliticize” it.
I wonder if Ginsburg had an epiphany, lost her Pro-Choice quasi-religion, rediscovered her Jewish religion, and remained seated until she could vet Trump and his presumptive choice.
Recall that that RBG replaced a pro-Life judge.
Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The American Dream.
Just look at the ballot in the People’s Republic of California. The descriptions are so twisted. Low information voters……
Don, the political class thrives on low information voters. Sadly, from personal observation the definition fits high intelligence voters with blinders, and limited information sources. These limitations often flow from conscious decisions for reasons that are inexplicable.
Howdy, physicsguy,
I still don’t think this always happens, but it is much of the time, especially these days. We could analogize, maybe – and this is why I got to writing this – think of 100 particles all exerting an equal force vector in the same direction: those are your Democrats.
Then on the other side you may have 100 or even 110 or 120 Rep particles, each exerting a force of the same magnitude, but while the general trend of their direction may be the same (and opposite that of the Dem particles), the Reps’ actual angles of attack are all slightly different. Consequently, their net total vector along the axis actually turns out to be a little less (sum of cosines) than the total contribution from the Dem particles. Hence, the net sum of forces is a slight nudge down the axis toward the Reps getting pushed off the table eventually.
I suppose that if I really tried hard, I could think of some kind of chemistry analogy that would be equivalent, but this one was just too nice to pass up.
(More motivation to comment: I also get a chance to eliminate that pesky plus sign!)
jes brought up an interesting example about which I’d completely forgotten – actually, being honest, I was pretty unaware of it to begin with. Looking up some background on those 2013 nominations, I think he’s right to point out that on that occasion, Reps did repurpose the “court-packing” terminology for a partisan end, though not as severely as have Sen. Durbin and The Usual Suspects in the situation of today.
I also agree with jes that the whole SCOTUS nomination scene is politicized at this point. In light of my past comments here about the Senate having become the Electoral College of the former, it would be silly of me to deny it. Now whether jes and I would agree on the conclusions to be drawn from that is a separate question.
Trump is a murderer, but Andrew Coumo isn’t? Have I missed something?
Scott the Badger – THAT IS THE POST OF THE YEAR!!! (Okay, maybe of the week). Touché. I will have to use it in my repertoire.
jes:
No, they were not trying to “reduce the size of the Court” by not taking up the Garland nomination. And what’s more, I think you know it. They were keeping it open temporarily, by not voting on it, but it was filled – by the Republicans – later, and at no point did anyone suggest that an 8-justice SCOTUS would be a permanent or lasting change.
As far as the DC Court of Appeals goes – in 2013, a few Republican senators (especially Grassley) did in fact make that accusation of “court-packing.” It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now, in my opinion.
However, the SCOTUS number has been fixed at 9 for 150 years. That stability has become an important part of its tradition of supposed impartiality (although we all know, of course, that individiual judges follow along lines of conservative or liberal judicial philosophy). The DC Court of Appeals has a very different history. For starters, that court was only created by Congress in 1893, and the number of judges changed quite a bit, even in recent years.
That said, I am in complete agreement that Obama was not packing the DC court.
In addition, though, I am old enough to remember when the Senate approval of SCOTUS judges (and other federal judges) was pretty much a given, whatever their political bent, and the vast majority were approved unless they had some sort of history of corruption or misconduct. That ended at the hands of Democrats, with the Bork hearing. Some history:
That was the beginning of the bad stuff, and it was absolutely at the hands of the Democrats. If there’s a war – and there is, at this point – the Democrats began it. And they even raised alarms about Souter being too conservative – which in retrospect is almost humorous, considering how liberal he ended up. Then there was Clarence Thomas – need I say more on that? :
Not only that, but during the Clinton administration just a few years later, Breyer and Ginsburg was approved almost unanimously. No problem at all, even for the very liberal Ginsburg. No tit for tat from the GOP. The there were some federal judge appointments that sailed right through as well.
But note this – which is relevant to our discussion about Obama’s 3 picks in 2013 for the DC court:
That was the same argument that came up again in 2013, and that’s why a few members of the GOP called it (wrongly, in my opinion) “packing the court.” It was something that had been discussed several times previously, and there was a rational argument to be made for reducing the size of the court, an argument that was not solely political.
And there is no question that the GOP behaved in a far less partisan way in general during the 80s and 90s, when the Democrats were going for blood.
Then during the Bush years the Democrats took a different approach to make it very difficult for him to appoint any judges. They filibustered over and over, and many of his federal appointments took about two years to confirm. This was another new tactic, and one pioneered by the Democrats.
But we saw them now, courtesy of the Democrats. And these judges were all qualified in the usual sense; the objections were purely political.
Next:
Next, the Democrats tried to filibuster Alito (something the Republicans had not done to Clinton’s nominees, although they could have). He was finally confirmed.
So that was the situation when we got to Obama and his nominees for the DC court. The Republicans had been playing nice for years, and the Democrats had been extremely political and vicious. And yet Obama’s SCOTUS picks Sotomayor and Kagan went through fairly uneventfully, and with significant Republican support. Those three previously-mentioned DC court appointments of Obama’s that the GOP attempted to block were a change for the Republicans, a switch to the use of tactics at least somewhat like those of the Democrats. Even then it was comparatively weak tea – as already noted, the DC court had long been criticized for having too many justices. And what did the Democrats do? End the filibuster for federal court judge appointments, a tool they had used over and over (and which the GOP had refrained from using previously) when it suited them.
Next – Obama and Merrick Garland:
They only could do that because they held the Senate – unlike today, when the Democrats are insisting that the GOP should apply such a “rule” (which is really no rule at all) against itself. Fat chance the Democrats would ever do such a thing, if the positions were reversed.
Next we have Gorsuch, whom the Democrats threatened to filibuster – although they had done away with the filibuster for other federal judge appointments back in 2013. That’s when the GOP said okay, we’ll do away with the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, since you did it first (and we warned you!). That’s how Gorsuch got in. Next up: Kavanaugh. I don’t think I have to describe what happened to him.
That’s quite a lopsided history. The Democrats made it this way, and although it took a long time for the Republicans to toughen up, they finally have. But the Republicans never got nasty enough to engage in the technique of trying to personally destroy someone. For Democrats, on the other hand – that’s one of their favorite approaches.
Philip Sells, well done! I haven’t had a comment here bring such a smIle to my face in a long time. Great analysis.
An observation, there is still a trend in the way the various senators and reps vote that indicates they want to get reelected and they want the money to get reelected so that’s the way they vote on issues, along with all of the crazy lobby money which can really work a well to make the Dems all line up in a straight row and step off on their right foot on command in time to the music. I suspect there is a lot of money that chooses the song as they go along.
neo:
First, as to your opening graf implying at best I’m being disingenuous. I will defend myself even though I said I was leaving. I would reply to to some of it later, but only if you are open to it — I do not have much time between now and tomorrow — I want to watch the Judiciary. Let me know.
for more from this quote, see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court
And from an article posted in the National Review
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/supreme-court-2016-election-fewer-justices-would-curb-power/
Jes:
You do not seem to understand how our government works, to quote a Presdent from the past, “Elections Count”.
That will be all, if your party has the Senate you can choose to seat the the Supremes, if you does not you can’t. If your party had the presidency you can nominate the next judge, if your party does not, you can’t. And that’s the why elections count for something.
If your have both you can choose the next Supreme Court Justice, “Elections Count”.
That will be all.
Most people seem to be missing the key dynamic. Of course the DNC is trying to redefine the term: they stepped in it big time and need to get it off their shoes. After signalling to their base that they intend to create a leftist majority by expanding the SCOTUS. By refusing to directly address their plan, they thought that they’d slide this by independent voters.
They were clearly wrong: voters noticed and don’t like it. Their response is to deny that they never said that. So now they’re being asked: “What do you mean?” And, of course, they won’t say.
This is all incredibly stupid:
(1) Why go there in the first place? This message is good for your base, but they aren’t the people you need to convince. This is a self-inflicted wound. You’re trying to convince the general public that Trump is a danger to the nation’s institutions, while you’re blowing up one of the three co-equal branches of government.
(2) Trying to redefine terms makes them and their media puppets look even more silly than they already are.
(3) Assuming that they wouldn’t be asked questions about this is insane.
(4) Trying to dodge the questions makes them look untrustworthy.
(5) They can’t put a candidate like Biden in a position where he has to answer real questions about policy: he’ll blow it. And, of course, he has.
(a) “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” “No, they don’t deserve.”
(b) “It’s not constitutional what they’re [GOP] doing.” [As if filling a seat through the process defined by the Constitution is not constitutional.]
(c) “The moment I answer that question, the headline in all your papers will be about that.” [Eh, Joe, that’s one of the things about being a leader: you can’t hide.]
jes:
Citing pbs (pretty boring stuff) as an authority, oh, what is a progressive to do? Pravda is not available? Crooked Hillary, she will look good in orange.
Advise and consent, you scream when a Republican Senator threatened to use your tools against you? Sad, sad and pathetic. Don’t go away mad ……
The Democrats believe that only they are the true voice of the people. Therefore any governing body that they don’t control is illegitimate. If they control the Presidency but not the Congress, then the president ought to rule by a pen and a phone. If the Congress but not the Presidency, then the president is just a figurehead. If neither, then the courts or the deep state is the only legitimate branch of government, etc.
They are not all that far from declaring that they have a collective right to rule by divine right.
OldTexan:
I’m no expert for sure. I do understand that history shows that norms are being abandoned in a tit-for-tat fashion. McConnell abandoned the SCOTUS norm that said 60 votes were needed to confirm in the Senate — in retaliation for what Reid did.
Next election if Dems win they may abandon the filibuster altogether. The Senate may operate like the House — simple majority rule. If Dems win the Senate we may “pack,” rebalance,” “restore,” or whatever you chose to call adding more seats to SCOTUS — then when Republicans win they can do the same, and would.
We will see-saw our way into the future unless something can be done to stop this hyper-partisan shift. I see one commenter here wants the Democrats dead, literally. Our experiment is dying. Two glasses of wine and I sound bleak. Sorry. Vote!
jes:
Did you read the history? Because you’re ignoring it.
From 1987 through the Bush II administration, the Democrats tried a host of approaches to blocking the GOP nominees, all of them unprecedented at the time. The Republicans continued to play by the rules, between 1987 and 2013, in the face of all of these provocations by the Democrats. Then in 2013 the GOP finally got a bit tougher.
I guess you and the other Democrats got used to being able to use hardball techniques while the Republicans were playing by gentleman’s rules. The Republicans finally got a bit more combative, but just a bit. To this day, Republicans have not used character assassination against Democratic nominees – unlike the Democrats, who have used it many times.
If the Republicans were planning to block Clinton’s nominees, it wouldn’t even begin to be payback for all the years the Democrats were playing very dirty pool without any significant Republican retaliation.
While we’re on the topic, who recalls the “nuclear option”?
My recollection is that Repubs thought about it. There was a fire storm of denunciations from media, Dems and various elites/celebs.
So Repubs didn’t invoke the nuclear option.
After the next election, Dems came into power and promptly used the nuclear option. Suddenly it was no big deal.
Am I misremembering it?
I read some history, mostly older stuff because as Bush said “history will decide.” I doubt we have much in common reading in regards to history — though I do recall reading a book by V.D. Hanson 20 years ago or so. I have never read a book on the history of the Supreme court — though I’m aware, I think, that the Supreme Court has been expanded or attempted to be expanded at least 3 times.
So, no, I’m not familiar with the historical view you detail. I’ll look at it at some point.
As to current histiony, now that both sides are happy with happy playing “dirty pool,” so be it, as OldTexan says. Democrats have no way to stop Barrett’s confirmation and we know it. The decision has been made to make you pay for it politically. You didn’t hear any attacks on her today from Democrats. What you saw was a process argument based on Obamacare and COVID and stimulus. Those are important issues to the country. We want to make Republicans pay for their actions and priorities — we want the Senate.
They are on point because they are fascists obeying orders and under the 4th Reich.
Of course some conservatives will push back on this and tell me that fascism does not exist in America or that Ymar is X.
Heard that and it is still wrong.
After the next election, Dems came into power and promptly used the nuclear option. Suddenly it was no big deal.
Am I misremembering it?
When the lEFT IS losing, they ask for mercy and quarter. When you are losing, they demand your head and ignore your cries for quarter/ransom.
Every damn one of them says the same damn thing over and over again…truly they must be the Borg in disguise
Ymar the Crystal Cube is recognized as the dreaded Borg more times than not by vampiric cabal members.
jes:
Who keeps coming back, I did not refer at all to the Republicans playing “dirty pool” I said, they will follow the law and they can appoint a judge to the Supreme Court and, ‘that’s that’.
There is indeed a power struggle going on and from my view point the Democrats have bent every rule every which way and their appointed judges have overstepped themselves overturning laws while at the same time backing up strange presidential directives and executive orders of the previous president and indeed we are in difficult times.
I lived through the times of 14 presidents and I do know a whole lot of history and the stuff going on now is now good at all. The anger and rancor along with destruction and violence have never occurred during my lifetime as it is happening at this time and I am so very worried about the outcome over the next few months. I know history and what we are experiencing is unlike anything we have ever seen before including the Civil War which was geographic and a disaster which should have been avoided at that time.
That will be all.
And this, in a nutshell, is where we are. The only thing that unites the left is hatred of the right.
“We want to make Republicans pay for their actions and priorities”-Jes
That is the heart of the matter right there. I and I think most people here want their policy preferences enacted. And then leave us the hell alone. The Democrats want REVENGE. That attitude allows them to view the other side not as wrong. But morally bankrupt and evil. Which lets their conscious off the hook when they enact their payment.
“We want to make Republicans pay for their actions and priorities”-Jes
That is the heart of the matter right there. I think most people here want their policy preferences enacted. And then leave us the hell alone. The Democrats want REVENGE. That attitude allows them to view the other side not as wrong. But morally bankrupt and evil. Which lets their conscious off the hook when they enact their payment.
OldTexan:
Yeah, I’m not trying to troll, but am oddly enjoying these exchanges. If neo asks me to leave, I will go. In the meantime I will be civil, keep on topic, and not try to denigrate ideas that I don’t agree with.
My apology for attributing the “dirty pool” with you when you clearly stated “Elections Count.” I’ll try to be more careful.
14 presidents! Impressive. Live long and prosper.I didn’t get political till the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency and have much to learn.
jes:
Bush v Gore? Well, we now have an idea of your intelligence and degree of indoctrination. Here’s a clue, it was the Florida Supreme Court that was playing fast and loose with those chads and the election process. Sort of like what Obama Federal judges have been trying this time around.
Mythx:
You view it as revenge. We view it as convincing the American public that you have the wrong politics and priorities. That’s just politics.
jes:
Petty, vindictive, unprincipled, immoral, yep that’s the Democrat party, as was shown to all during the Kavanaugh hearings.
jes
Except that is not what you stated. You can “convincing the American public that you have the wrong politics and priorities” and have nothing to do with “We want to make Republicans pay for their actions and priorities”
They are NOT the same thing. One is persuasion the other punishment. I think you know that but got your hand caught in the cookie jar.
Want to know why discourse in politics is being destroyed? That is the reason. They are not the same at all. I am confident you would not characterize it that way when the pendulum swings against you. And if the right decided to “make you pay” as you suggest. What sort of payment do you think is appropriate?
Mythx:
What is the price I’m asking for since Dems have no power to prevent Barrett’s confirmation? I want you to lose the Presidency and the Senate. That is the price you will pay. Since when is that revenge. The only way we can make it happen is by convincing the public that your side doesn’t deserve their power they have been entrusted with. Elections matter. You quibble.
“…convincing the public that your side doesn’t deserve their power they have been entrusted with.”
Once again Through the Looking-Glass.
You simply can’t argue with “these people”—even those that on the face of it appear at first to be a bit more thoughtful….
All this in spite of the patient rebuttal and detailed explications of differences by Neo and others.
Too bad. But thanks (again) for the education.
File under: Proudly obtuse.
” What you saw was a process argument based on Obamacare and COVID and stimulus.”
“Process argument”??
Actually “hysterical mud-slinging”—or rather, “typically hysterical and unhinged mud-slinging laced with laughable if, unfortunately, incendiary innuendo”—would be far more accurate.
But nice try….
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-judge-barrett-did-not-criticize-the-affordable-care-act/
And (reposted):
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/10/democrats-attack-judge-barrett-with-bogus-talking-point.php
Packing the Supreme Court was how Chavez stayed in power in Venezuela long after he had overstayed his welcome with the electorate. It isn’t just about legislating from the bench. It is about putting your opponents in jail, rigging the election system, and basically assuring that all of the institutions of the state are subordinate to to the executive branch.
Well, yes; the Democrat approach in all things: Calvin Ball rules.
People get all spun up arguing how the leftists are hypocrites, and how their logic is wrong.
The reality is leftists only values and principles are obtaining power, and will say and do anything to further that goal. Trying to argue logic with them is just a waste of time, they don’t even believe what they are saying.
Roy, excellent comment and extremely apt.
Obama took the concept of “imperial presidency” and propelled it into the stratosphere.
Now the courts are tainted, as the Stalinist set up and prosecution—and continued persecution—of Obama-political-prisoner Michael Flynn amply proves.
And it’s not only Michael Flynn who was persecuted, hog-tied, shamed and bankrupted by that rogue regime, which is currently doing its putrid best, Chavez style, to claw its way back into power in a few weeks.
– – – – – – – –
“…they don’t even believe what they are saying.”
True of some, no doubt (even more than “some”) but not, I don’t believe, of many (perhaps not even most), whose natural political leanings and inclinations have been hardened and radicalized, distorted and corrupted, warped and weaponized by the tremendous and nefarious propagandistic successes of an incendiary, corrupt—and corrupting—media.
Which is a huge part of the tragedy—and the horror—of the current nasty, sordid, disgusting reality in which the country is currently enmired.
“SCOTUS is entirely politicized.”
But it is rather interesting (isn’t it?) that usually it’s the so-called right-of-center justices who “disappoint” (make that, “exasperate”) their supposed base…which is somewhat if not quite akin to the phenomenon of “Never Trumpery”, something that one almost NEVER sees happen on the other side of the political aisle(except, perhaps, for that maverick known as Tulsi Gabbard as well as those times—about once every four years or so (it seems to have become a tradition)—when the Democrats decide to knee-cap Bernie Sanders).
In any event, here’s Turley with a crucial clarification on ending an unnecessary, though oft-exploited, abuse:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/520583-senate-must-end-sham-politics-of-precedent-for-amy-coney-barrett.
H/T Powerline blog
Jes, I don’t recall seeing you here before – if you’re new, welcome.
I think we on the Right aren’t always careful with our SC terminology (and I think we are not alone – obviously both the Democrats and the media – but I repeat myself, as they say – do exactly this as well): we might refer to a “conservative” justice when what we are talking about is an “originalist” or a “textualist” justice. In a perfect world on the Right, all judges and justices would adhere to this philosophy, and because it’s only on our side of the aisle (as far as I can tell) that this philosophy is considered correct, we shorthand it out as “conservative.” We do, rightly I think, recognize this judicial philosophy as in opposition to the type favored by the Left, the “activist,” “living Constitution,” or (also sloppy – or perhaps purposefully obfuscating -terminology) “liberal” judicial philosophy, the philosophy that permits new law to be created from the bench.
So. When a Republican president nominates an originalist, and Democrats’ critiques of that nominee focus on that nominee’s likelihood of “overturning settled law” such as Roe, Republicans in the Senate can rightly argue that that “law” isn’t actually law – it should have been kicked back to the states (the federalist, and my preferred, approach) or dealt with through the Congress (the legislative approach but in my non-constitutional-scholar opinion an overstepping of federal authority). When the critique focuses on “overturning settled law” like the ACA, the question for Republicans is, is the ACA constitutional? But even then, a case has to be brought. The SC doesn’t just decide on its own to decide if this or that law is constitutional.
But when Democrats use these “qualify/disqualify” critiques, it looks to us on the Right as if what Democrats actually want is to overturn THE settled law, the Constitution – to find and seat justices who will state or imply that the Constitution is not dispositive but is instead a more or less loose framework that they can use or ignore as it suits their purpose. And, justices who have made it clear through their careers that they have what they consider to be a higher purpose than upholding the Constitution and interpreting cases in light of it. And Democrats seldom disappoint – they talk and act as if this is exactly what they want.
One problem I think we on the Right see with Democrat policies is that too often, those policies cannot pass constitutional muster. Therefore to get those policies enacted, the Democrat side sees (or “saw,” since now we seem to be entering the “burn it all down” era) no choice but to try to seat as many non-originalist judges and justices as possible. And then it’s Katy bar the door.
“…redefine the phrase…to meet their needs.”
If they’re willing to take a medical cocktail that, when used correctly, is a PROVEN LIFESAVER and call it—and continue to call it—“A KILLER”, then they are perfectly able to REDEFINE anything and everything TO MEET THEIR NEEDS.
And they should always be expected to do so.
ALWAYS.
The Zelenko Protocol:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/288940
If the democrats held the Senate and the presidency and the election was a few weeks away, would the demokrats wait until after the election to nominate a SC justice??
Whoever thinks the answer to the above is yes, is either a really, really dumb stupid moron or a liar (oh, wait, a dumb ass? a liar? – that’s right, that would be a demokrat!!)
Indeed, which is to be master. Bhaal or…. yhsvh?
Four years ago when I voted for Trump who I did no care for at all but thought if he could appoint one Supreme Court Judge then he was worth my vote, it was that simple. About this time in October I was seeing a quiet undercurrent of others thinking the same thing and on election day people did turn out and vote for Trump. Oh What a Day !
Of course the Democrats knew there was no way Trump could lose and waiting a bit for a woman president to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court was going to be a wonderful historic moment, no way Hillary was going to lose, until she did. And that’s the way it was four years ago and here we are with Trump having a chance to appoint a third judge who is a most accomplished, fully qualified Judge who happens to be a woman.
There are no tricky things going on here, just normal business as usual and it would really be pleasant if Trump has a lot of quiet people who are casting votes to reelect him, it could happen once more.
jes:
You are our newest progressive pinjata (cultural appropriation warning). Manju and Montage now have some competition for vapidity.
If Obamacare has “legal issues,” here is a wild concept.
Instead of promoting the totally BS argument that the SCOTUS should decide its future, how about the elected representatives in the US House and Senate lock themselves in a conference room and hammer out a bill that everybody can agree on – one with no “legal issues.”
That’s right; have our elected representatives actually do their FUCKING JOBS for once, as they are supposed to do. And maybe, if they really gave a flying F’k about the citizenry, they would produce a bill that is far better than the original.
The entire democrat bullshit argument that it’s up to the SCOTUS to decide the fate of Ocrappie -care, is another ruse by them not to do their job and pawn it off on a bunch of robed individuals. It’s all total bullshit.
Anyone that has even the slightest pico-gram of honesty realizes that something far better than Obamacare can be produced by law makers in Washington, DC.
It is absolutely disgusting to see the depravity, the dishonesty, the scum , the lying pieces of snake excrement that populate the US Senate and House.
Makes you want to go to DC and ……… well,,,,,,,get rid of the vermin.
As some smart people have pointed out, what’s going on fundamentally right now is the consensus/paradigm that’s governed public affairs since the end of the Cold War and possible the entire post-WWII era no longer works and is being challenged on multiple levels. The people who have not only benefited from that consensus/paradigm but in many cases have a great deal of their self-worth invested in it are desperately struggling to keep everything just as it’s been. Desperate people are not exactly known for their sober rationality.
Stephen Miller, redsteeze on Twitter, has a new article out in the Spectator.
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1316052369784754177
The premise is “Trump dragged the GOP through hell but it was worth it to the Right because they got three Supreme Court Justices out of it.”
Now, put aside the blithe dismissal of what Trump’s accomplished on trade, foreign policy, deregulation, and immigration. Let’s even overlook the implicit acknowledgement that Jeb or Marco or the other possible alternatives to Trump in 2016 could or even would have lost to Hillary. Stephens is completely, utterly, inarguably wrong when he implies that Trump is the problem. Trump didn’t drag the GOP to hell. The GOP was already in hell and Trump’s the one who came along and offered people a way out.
Even if you think Trump is traveling down a path toward destruction, the pivotal question is “Why were people willing to follow him?” I respect Miller for being an anti-Trumper who hasn’t abandoned everything he believed in to grift off liberal billionaires but his total blindness to how people LIKE HIM made Trump possible is beyond excuse.
Mike
Mr Bunge
“Stephens is completely, utterly, inarguably wrong when he implies that Trump is the problem.”
inarguably – some may disagree 😉
Dial it to 11?
So let me see if I’ve got this right. It’s now perfectly okay to demand to see to the minutest detail the tax returns of a public (or private, for that matter) individual, but not okay to expect a candidate for the highest office to admit whether or not he’ll overthrow 150 years of established and deservedly respected precedent in order to incontrovertibly establish a hyper-partisan U. S. Supreme Court?
As long as we’re on the topic of “redefine”, let’s take a look at Susan Rice’s gloriously exculpatory “by the book”:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/declassified-fbi-spreadsheet-exposes-steele-dossier-farce-media-reports-fbi-reports-media
Good move Ms. Rice, and super-convincing!
Ilya Shapiro recently came out with a book on the history of the Supreme Court, a pretty quick read. It’s full of fun facts – yes, the Supreme Court has been expanded before; initially justices were added when new circuit courts of appeals were added. And there never was a time when it was considered normal to just pick a highly qualified judge and confirm him – presidents often considered judicial philosophy, as well as party loyalty and regional representation. The federal courts have never been apolitical. That’s not excusing the nastiness of recent decades, though.
shadow:
If you go to the link I offered in my comment here, you’ll see that there was indeed a time when “it was considered normal to just pick a highly qualified judge and confirm him.” That is, presidents of course considered judicial philosophy and politics when making their picks, but the opposing side did not oppose the picks unless there was some sort of graft or corruption, and it was not unusual to have unanimous or nearly-unanimous confirmation votes.
The link is very helpful.
Jamie nails it. There is a very good reason SC appointments have become so divisive and bitter. And we all know what it is. Roe etc. are side issues compared to the real prize. The SC is the only way the left can override the Constitution and it’s protection of individual liberty. For example, they would love to do away with the 2nd Amendment but would never be able to do so under the existing mechanism. Two thirds of the Congress and three quarters of the states? LOL! But by legislating from the bench, they can water down the Bill of Rights to a hollow shell. Every originalist judge on the court is an obstacle to the left’s ultimate goal. To ‘fundamentally transform’* this country. No wonder they rant and rage.
*And frankly, I find this to be treason.
All tradition and decorum in evaluating a SC justice went out the window when Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987.
IN that disgusting, repugnant Stalinist show-trial , the demokrats decided they would paint Bork, for all intents and purposes, as a Nazi, KKK and Confederate States of America supporter all rolled into one.
And let’s all guess who were the ringleaders in this deceitful hit job on Bork. Just who played the roles – to perfection !!! – of Roland Freisler and Andrey Vyshinsky??
Drum roll please,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
JOE BIDEN and the murderer TED KENNEDY.
The Bork fiasco gave the English lexicon a new word; “borked.”
As long as we’re opening up cans of worms (of which there seems to be a generous supply)…
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/
H/T Instapundit
No doubt the Democrats—you know, the party of VALUES—are infuriated at the utter lack of respect shown by an article of this ilk both toward the candidate (e.g., “How can you be so disrespectful? So awful? So repugnant? He’ll be 78 years old next month! He’s the Democratic presidential candidate!! AND he’s suffering from dementia!!! How DARE you?? Have you no SHAME???”)…and toward his dear, dear son Hunter (e.g., “How can you be so hateful? His father is the Democratic presidential candidate! He himself is the father of a new child!! He delivered an address at the DNC!! He’s served on the boards of many prestigious international companies!! How DARE you?? Have you no SHAME???”) etc., etc…
File under: Moral Outrage, Inc.