This country is no longer a democracy and we need to stop pretending. This goes along with voter observation in other countries. We are a very bad example and should recuse ourselves, entirely.
9
Very sad state of affairs
REALITY-CHECK: There is no intelligent basis for the observation that SCOTUS is now 'crippled' in any way
WHAT IS CRIPPLED, is the collective mentality of our population, and SCOTUS is merely a reflection of that
Polls indicate that about 2/3rd of the public think we are on the 'wrong track', but that is a meaningless observation. By my observation, about 40% believe we are in a disastrous state because our government is too Liberal, and another 40% thinks it's because the government is too conservative
Judging by the Reader Comments, and the recommendations/ratings here on NYT, among the most informed block of our population;
I judge our collective intelligence as frightfully low. Americans, on the whole, are massively misinformed regarding things that can be judged to be factually correct, or incorrect. That, ultimately wouldn't be a big problem, if we had the ability to self-correct. But we don't, and more importantly We don't want to. Collectively we feel entitled not only to our own opinions, but our own facts, as well
A giant industry has sprung up over the last couple decades to produces studies, and research to support ANY ideological point of view immaginable
Besides being factually weak, we are even worse off in regards to accepting propaganda in place of intellectually honest debate
REGARDING SCOTUS: We have virtually NO honest judges anymore. Almost all decisions are based on ideological divide vs ANY honest analysis of facts and law
REALITY-CHECK: There is no intelligent basis for the observation that SCOTUS is now 'crippled' in any way
WHAT IS CRIPPLED, is the collective mentality of our population, and SCOTUS is merely a reflection of that
Polls indicate that about 2/3rd of the public think we are on the 'wrong track', but that is a meaningless observation. By my observation, about 40% believe we are in a disastrous state because our government is too Liberal, and another 40% thinks it's because the government is too conservative
Judging by the Reader Comments, and the recommendations/ratings here on NYT, among the most informed block of our population;
I judge our collective intelligence as frightfully low. Americans, on the whole, are massively misinformed regarding things that can be judged to be factually correct, or incorrect. That, ultimately wouldn't be a big problem, if we had the ability to self-correct. But we don't, and more importantly We don't want to. Collectively we feel entitled not only to our own opinions, but our own facts, as well
A giant industry has sprung up over the last couple decades to produces studies, and research to support ANY ideological point of view immaginable
Besides being factually weak, we are even worse off in regards to accepting propaganda in place of intellectually honest debate
REGARDING SCOTUS: We have virtually NO honest judges anymore. Almost all decisions are based on ideological divide vs ANY honest analysis of facts and law
18
Crippled SCOTUS? Who to blame- Congress?
Yes, of course the GOP led Senate is derelict in their duties and once again- as always and ever are demagogues who put party, power and money before country. But who allowed this to happen?
I blame the Dem voter who couldn't be bothered to vote in the last mid term election and handed control of the Senate to the GOP and McConnell.
At the end of the day- lack of voter participation in the electoral process in elections- but especially mid terms- gives us a corrupt government. We only have ourselves to blame for this mess and as the old saying goes- if you didn't bother to vote- then you cannot complain. I voted- where was everyone else?
Yes, of course the GOP led Senate is derelict in their duties and once again- as always and ever are demagogues who put party, power and money before country. But who allowed this to happen?
I blame the Dem voter who couldn't be bothered to vote in the last mid term election and handed control of the Senate to the GOP and McConnell.
At the end of the day- lack of voter participation in the electoral process in elections- but especially mid terms- gives us a corrupt government. We only have ourselves to blame for this mess and as the old saying goes- if you didn't bother to vote- then you cannot complain. I voted- where was everyone else?
13
Republican obstructionism on Obama's centrist Supreme Court nominees, coupled with their near monolithic policy views favoring an upward redistribution of wealth and suppression of minority voting rights, demonstrates what they really want in our feature: an American form of judicially-imposed economic and racial apartheid. They cannot win elections the fair way, the American way, so they cling to the next best thing: an imperial, oppressive judiciary that protects the moneyed interests and white privilege. For too many Republicans, their identity as white Americans too often "trumps" their identity as Americans, who should treasure our constitutional protections and procedures. May the Lord have mercy on our beloved country.
12
Much ado about nothing. The Supreme Court has no set number of justices it is supposed to have. There have been fewer throughout history. Why is it such a problem now? Because Democrats aren't the majority on the bench.
9
One could argue that a 9 person court issuing 5-4 decisions is more crippling than an 8 person court rendering a 4-4 decision: the former makes it the law of the land, the latter sends it back to the lower courts -- and hence the people -- to revisit and sort out.
13
White men loosing their dominance. I can't help be think that the Republician's refusal to concider Judge Merrik is anger over the"other" having power to choose the justice. It's going to be check-mate for them when President Clinton gets to nominate the next jurist.
8
POTUS should make a recess appointment, Congress had their chance for review and consent, but instead simply refused to fulfill their Constitutional duties.
14
Sometimes a tie is far better than a decision. Be careful of what you may wish for...
8
It is not just perception.
4
If they win the Senate, look for the Republicans to refuse to confirm any Supreme Court nominee a President Clinton puts forward. They will cross their fingers, hoping to get a better candidate in 2020, while trying any voter suppression tactics they can to get by the implacable demographic changes in the electorate. They have made a precedent in their shameful stonewalling on the Garland nomination, and will continue their hyper-partisan scorched earth policy. If the Democrats win the Senate and don't immediately invoke the "nuclear option," to bar the filibustering of Supreme Court nominations, they are once again playing the fool with a ruthless adversary- the same one that knew how to put Bush in the White House against the votes of the American people.
10
One wonders whether the Republicans will continue their refusal to confirm a a nominee made by a Democratic president, should HRC win the election? She is favored to win, but control of the senate is a tossup now, and in any event 60 votes are needed for cloture (to end debate).
Will the Republicans simply refuse to confirm? Where would that take us?
If the Republicans filibustered a Democrat-controlled senate then the Democrats could use "the nuclear option"; change the cloture rules. In November 2013, Harry Reid & Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.
But if the Republicans hold the majority?
The Republicans are desperate after the death of judge Scalia -- they know that the end of the conservative court is likely with any Democratic nominee. The two next-oldest justices (Ginsburg, Breyer) lean liberal ... if in control of the senate will the Republicans simply stall, waiting and gambling that the next justice to die or retire will hand them back the Supreme Court?
Why wouldn't they? How long would the voters from Republican-controlled states endorse such a dereliction of office? Perhaps "forever?"
Will the Republicans simply refuse to confirm? Where would that take us?
If the Republicans filibustered a Democrat-controlled senate then the Democrats could use "the nuclear option"; change the cloture rules. In November 2013, Harry Reid & Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.
But if the Republicans hold the majority?
The Republicans are desperate after the death of judge Scalia -- they know that the end of the conservative court is likely with any Democratic nominee. The two next-oldest justices (Ginsburg, Breyer) lean liberal ... if in control of the senate will the Republicans simply stall, waiting and gambling that the next justice to die or retire will hand them back the Supreme Court?
Why wouldn't they? How long would the voters from Republican-controlled states endorse such a dereliction of office? Perhaps "forever?"
6
Judge Garland should already be a Justice as he is eminently qualified and is an exemplar of nonpartisan judging. I hope that his nomination will remain in place for the duration of this Congress.
If Clinton wins and Democrats regain the Senate majority, I would like to see Senators Reid and Schumer offer Senator McConnell the following choice:
A. Bring the nomination to the floor during the lame duck. The entire Republican leadership and all Senators up for re-election in 2018 will vote to confirm Judge Garland.
OR
B. All nominees to the Supreme Court during the next Congress will be confirmed by simple majority vote.
If Trump wins and Democrats regain the majority in the Senate, President Obama could re-nominate Judge Garland next January 3 and Democrats could confirm him by simple majority vote.
If Clinton wins and Democrats regain the Senate majority, I would like to see Senators Reid and Schumer offer Senator McConnell the following choice:
A. Bring the nomination to the floor during the lame duck. The entire Republican leadership and all Senators up for re-election in 2018 will vote to confirm Judge Garland.
OR
B. All nominees to the Supreme Court during the next Congress will be confirmed by simple majority vote.
If Trump wins and Democrats regain the majority in the Senate, President Obama could re-nominate Judge Garland next January 3 and Democrats could confirm him by simple majority vote.
3
The Court is hardly crippled. Some simply are not getting a composition to their liking. Enough exaggeration.
9
Precisely, throughout history we have had even fewer justices on the SCOTUS than we have now and no one in those days thought we were crippled.
6
The Court is definitely hobbled. There are limitations to the scope and effect of 4-4 decisions.
3
If it isn't obvious by now that the Republicans controlling Capitol Hill will not permit a vote to appoint the next Supreme Court justice then it will never be. Those stubborn intelligent cronies know that the public wants a new justice and a liberal justice. Read: Stop hijacking the house and senate and DO YOUR JOB! If they can't do their job, I suggest cutting off their lucrative salaries right now. Essentially their's is a type of strike and they should not be paid for striking. The very fact that this happened should alarm the voting public into taking what ever action is necessary to get a new Justice appointed. How is this tolerated? Shame on the Republican Party!
11
The GOP has gridlock the country for the last six years with no regard for the American people. This is just a extension of that plan. Their goal is their narrow agenda. The Court should not be an extension of either party, but a place to resolve legal issues. The judges on it do the country a major disservice by supporting a party.
9
The next-to-last paragraph said it all: of course the Supreme Court is a partisan body, it always has been. What all of us were taught in school about our "democratic form of government" isn't quite true. The court anointing Bush as president in 2000 was the beginning of the ending of the farcical idea that our government is a true democracy: it isn't now and it never was.
7
The current dead lock problems exists because too often Supreme Court Judges are selected to achieve ideological goals rather than follow the intended meaning of the constitution. If the court was populated with all originalists it would not matter much which set we had because origionalism is not defined by left leaning or right leaning ideology but rather by following the intended meaning of Constitution the ratifiers would have understood it to have, period.
With true originalist, the left right politics would be eliminated and many decisions that might be 4-4 in the current court would more likely be 7-1 or 8-0.
I believe that many have a problem with originalism because those who defined the constitution and its Amendments priior to the 20th century were not progessives and to have certain laws based on social justice and progessivism requires interpretation / construction away from the original meaning.
Most all in the government take an oath to the constitution, and in my opinion, to the meaning those who ratified it and made it law understood it to have, as best as that can be determined.
Should those in our government honor their oath the the constitution? I think too many people would say no. Perhaps many would prefer for our government to appear to keep its oaths, by saying the constitution means what it does not.
Right or wrong, that's my opinion.
John
With true originalist, the left right politics would be eliminated and many decisions that might be 4-4 in the current court would more likely be 7-1 or 8-0.
I believe that many have a problem with originalism because those who defined the constitution and its Amendments priior to the 20th century were not progessives and to have certain laws based on social justice and progessivism requires interpretation / construction away from the original meaning.
Most all in the government take an oath to the constitution, and in my opinion, to the meaning those who ratified it and made it law understood it to have, as best as that can be determined.
Should those in our government honor their oath the the constitution? I think too many people would say no. Perhaps many would prefer for our government to appear to keep its oaths, by saying the constitution means what it does not.
Right or wrong, that's my opinion.
John
3
For those who would claim the Constitution is intended to be a living document outside of the amendment process, please site a reference indicating that was the understanding. Something directly from the condtitution, the Federalist papers, or the debates would be a credible source
Any opinion after it was ratified would not because it could not impact the understanding st the time.
Any opinion after it was ratified would not because it could not impact the understanding st the time.
1
We need to have new check and balances created for our government. If the legislative branch does not want to do its job, the guilty parties should be fired. It's that simple. Their refusal to do their job and hold hearings on President Obama's SCOTUS nominee is an example of dereliction of duty, and it should not go unpunished. Imagine if the Supreme Court said, "We refuse to hear any more cases until new members of Congress are elected." Wow! That would blow people's minds. But Congress can collect a government paycheck and healthcare and benefits out the wazoo for doing absolutely nothing. Sounds like they're a bunch of moochers and takers.
I can't wait until this election is over. I hope Americans vote in this election and we select adults who wants to serve the people of the United States honorably.
I can't wait until this election is over. I hope Americans vote in this election and we select adults who wants to serve the people of the United States honorably.
8
Justice Roberts, who does seem to have a conscience, must recognize that his court has become a plaything of the Republican led congress, who fail to do both their constitutional and moral duty in regards to.
As a simple, but effective response, Judge Roberts should withdraw from decisions on cases which would otherwise be a split decision. That would break the gridlock, as well as confront those on the right that would make his court a joke.
As a simple, but effective response, Judge Roberts should withdraw from decisions on cases which would otherwise be a split decision. That would break the gridlock, as well as confront those on the right that would make his court a joke.
7
Hopelessly biased RBG should recuse herself.
4
Actually a crippled SCOTUS is likely a good thing. This will prevent them from issuing radical social engineering legislation from the bench decisions that have been their specialty as they usurped the legislative responsibilities of Congress and the states over the last 60 + years and undermined the U.S. Constitution and federal and state statutory laws to strike down any statutes that did not agree with their extremist views on dozens of social, moral, political and economic issues. The Left needs to be forewarned: If Hillary Clinton narrowly wins the Presidency and the Republicans retain or even increase their numbers, as the polls indicate, to hold onto control of the U.S. Senate they can and likely will fulfill their sworn constitutional duties of consultation, review, and approval or more likely rejection of any and all left wing judicial activists that Clinton will likely try to foist on the SCOTUS including any "stealth candidates" who appear "moderate" (whatever that means in legal lexicon) but are actually radical "shape shifters". There is nothing in the Constitution or Federal law that says the U.S. Senate must approve any judicial nominee and if Clinton keeps sending radical shysters as nominees they have not just the right but the duty to just as quickly turn them down. If Clinton wins and wants to start her term off trying to have compromise and reconciliation with the GOP she would be well advised to appoint a strict constructionist to the U.S. Supreme Court.
5
Judge Garland was not being judicious with his reputation for allowing President Obama a to nominate him for SCOTUS. It would have been clear to the dimmest commentator that the Republican senate would not confirm him - or anyone else nominated by a lame duck minority party POTUS. LBJ couldn't get Mr. Justice Abe Fortas, his pal, successfully moved to the Chief justice position in his lame duck year.
A more profitable route for SCOTUS to take is to avoid ruling on cases in which the 4-4 divide is clear until a fifth justice is confirmed. H-Rod will nominate a "moderate," possibly a woman of color, who will be the Clinton choice to perform as "Whizzer" White, the Kennedy appointee who was chosen more for his prowess on the gridiron than for his judicial brilliance. Loretta Lynch deserves a reward for her actions on behalf of the Clintons, and her nomination can pander to both their gender and racial backers. By the way, does she have a record as a "liberal" and. if so, in what way?
A more profitable route for SCOTUS to take is to avoid ruling on cases in which the 4-4 divide is clear until a fifth justice is confirmed. H-Rod will nominate a "moderate," possibly a woman of color, who will be the Clinton choice to perform as "Whizzer" White, the Kennedy appointee who was chosen more for his prowess on the gridiron than for his judicial brilliance. Loretta Lynch deserves a reward for her actions on behalf of the Clintons, and her nomination can pander to both their gender and racial backers. By the way, does she have a record as a "liberal" and. if so, in what way?
They don't come more judicious than Judge Garland.
He is the purest litmus test of Republican sincerity President Obama could have chosen to nominate to the Court now.
He is the purest litmus test of Republican sincerity President Obama could have chosen to nominate to the Court now.
12
Is a complete Supreme Court necessary, when the Supreme Court has refused to perform its Constitutional duties; PROTECTION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? In the interest of brevity, (required by the ridiculous shortness the NYT allows for comments and the reason this looks chopped up). The U.S. Supreme Court should make decisions on a number of recent actions and currently active programs. Just to pick a random Program that needs a check regarding its Constitutionality; the 1033 Program, which takes equipment intended for use in War, and turns it toward the citizens of the U.S. Another example of something on which the Supreme Court protect the Constitution are any number of actions taken by the Central Intelligence Agency. The necessity for gathering intelligence and its inherent aspect of secrecy is understood by this writer. Instances where the CIA is used as a tool for instituting agendas, from inception, and including funding and execution, in situations where standard "Constitutional" methods are not a viable option, are an especially extreme case of a situation where the Constitutionality must be reviewed and opinions formed. The ends do not justify the means.
Thank you sincerely for listening to and considering my thoughts on this subject. Tim Fulmer
Thank you sincerely for listening to and considering my thoughts on this subject. Tim Fulmer
2
Democrats argue that the Republicans are violating the original intent of the Constitution. That's ironic. The only judge who ever cared about original intent was Scalia. The Democrats are using Scalia's argument even though they hated him.
3
It seems that only liberals thinkers are beside themselves because of the current 4-4 split.
If the Supreme Court is hobbled, there is a simple fix that I believe most Americans would favor, and that is for one or more of the four liberal justices to join the four conservatives.
Unhappy Liberals could help by putting pressure on their four allies on the Court.
If the Supreme Court is hobbled, there is a simple fix that I believe most Americans would favor, and that is for one or more of the four liberal justices to join the four conservatives.
Unhappy Liberals could help by putting pressure on their four allies on the Court.
3
I do believe that the Supreme Court has become nothing more than a partisan political operation. Chief Justice John Roberts must bear a lot of responsibility for allowing that to happen as there is no small number of Americans who believe that the justices decide the most important cases through their political lenses. It must be noted that Justice Stephen Breyer has had the most neutral record of all the Justices.
1
The chance of the issue being resolved, amicably or not, after the 2016 election is diminishing daily, due in large part to editorials like this one.
3
Tell it to the racist in charge, Mitch McConnell.
His name should be in front of any Supreme Court story concerning the number of justices on the court.
His and he should be called out for the racist he is.
But our brave media had to wait for Trump to be "brave".
And Mitch McConnell? Still proudly racist, still obstructing Obama because he is black and still NOT being called out on his racism.
Oh yeah, where oh where did Trump come from.
Media - gosh oh golly, don't have a clue.
His name should be in front of any Supreme Court story concerning the number of justices on the court.
His and he should be called out for the racist he is.
But our brave media had to wait for Trump to be "brave".
And Mitch McConnell? Still proudly racist, still obstructing Obama because he is black and still NOT being called out on his racism.
Oh yeah, where oh where did Trump come from.
Media - gosh oh golly, don't have a clue.
2
It speaks to the general incompetence and stupidity of the US Congress that this has been allowed to happen. I mean both houses, and both parties, and I mean their staff as well. They're just not the caliper of people we used to have in those offices. They aren't as smart. They aren't as upstanding. They aren't as able to get things done.
.
It's not just their failure to review a Supreme Court Nominee. They have also failed to release Zika funding, and fallen far short of what is necessary to fix the Flint water crisis. And then of course there's the constant procrastination and brinkmanship on the budget: one of the most basic functions the body has.
.
I say toss them all out. Make 2016 the year of the turnover on Capitol Hill. Whatever your party - you are NOT being adequately represented by the current batch of men and women in the US Legislature. Vote for the Challenger!
.
It's not just their failure to review a Supreme Court Nominee. They have also failed to release Zika funding, and fallen far short of what is necessary to fix the Flint water crisis. And then of course there's the constant procrastination and brinkmanship on the budget: one of the most basic functions the body has.
.
I say toss them all out. Make 2016 the year of the turnover on Capitol Hill. Whatever your party - you are NOT being adequately represented by the current batch of men and women in the US Legislature. Vote for the Challenger!
3
Continued spoiled brat behavior of the teaparty/GOP makes America look like a failed government. If a Democrat sits in the White House again the Republicans may be sorry they wouldn't countenance Judge Garland.
1
After years of Republicans premeditatively breaking down the functionality of our government institutions we have half the voting population in this country hysterically crying about how everything has fallen apart. This is nothing less than years of them employing the tactics of other terrorists—blow it up then claim only they can stop the destruction. This is just the "starve the beast" strategy they have employed now for generations because there was no chance they could get what they wanted democratically (for some reason they just can't get enough Americans on board to vote away Social Security, Medicare, etc.). Now we all have to suffer from their cynical attack on America made (orange) flesh–Donald Trump. The truly astonishing part, is that despite this strategy leading to the demise of their own party, they continue on with their same suicidal behavior. So what's it gonna take McConnell you to do the right thing? Well I for one think you and your cohorts, being same sad and pathetic excuses of public servants you are, are content to damage this country beyond compare.
4
It's simple, really. The GOP, as a group, super-patriots, claimed conservatives, always ready to grab a flag and demanding fealty to the Constitution and "all it stands for" by others--while waving copies of it in the air(!)...in fact, cannot abide by that most basic concept of representative democracy: the consequence of elections.
Shocked when they lose, and utterly cynical in their post-election behavior, the GOP is led by people like Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, who have no qualms handing over the decision-making of the Senate to the corporate boardrooms of the NRA, giving credence to their lie that there is an 'immanent threat' to the 2nd Amendment. Even if that goes against both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution (that they 'love' so much) as well as putting one branch of government into the position of sabotaging another branch of government, in order to score partisan points on behalf of their financial backers...who don't like to lose.
This is why we have to remove money from the election process. It artificially raises the stakes of partisanship, from the history, principles, and traditions constitutional democracy represents; to the crass calculation of a business investment expecting a return for money spent.
Never has American government and governance been so cheapened by so few and so vocal in their feigned 'respect' for its institutions.
Shocked when they lose, and utterly cynical in their post-election behavior, the GOP is led by people like Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, who have no qualms handing over the decision-making of the Senate to the corporate boardrooms of the NRA, giving credence to their lie that there is an 'immanent threat' to the 2nd Amendment. Even if that goes against both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution (that they 'love' so much) as well as putting one branch of government into the position of sabotaging another branch of government, in order to score partisan points on behalf of their financial backers...who don't like to lose.
This is why we have to remove money from the election process. It artificially raises the stakes of partisanship, from the history, principles, and traditions constitutional democracy represents; to the crass calculation of a business investment expecting a return for money spent.
Never has American government and governance been so cheapened by so few and so vocal in their feigned 'respect' for its institutions.
5
So did the times cry out against Harry Reid's refusal to confirm judicial appointments in 2007 and 2008?
4
"...the Republicans have shut down the process entirely out of fear that the near half-century of conservative control of the court could come to an end"
That final sentence says it all and needs to be highlighted repeatedly in all discussions of the issue. It was always about cementing and maintaining control over information, science, morality, religion, privilege, money, and power at the expense of all others who don't fit the 20th Century conservative ideal of "real America".
The end is already in sight as the 21st Century heads towards a more open, interconnected, inclusive, and multi-cultural society, despite the attempts of dark forces of 20th century racism, sexism, homophobia, and more in sabotaging the eventuality of the process. Just look at history. At every big crossroad, progressivism eventually won but not until generational demographic change occurred. That same change is happening now.
It's a basic law of the universe: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Progressives had their time in the early to mid 20th Century but had to cede power when society veered rightward in 1980 to conservatives. But they continued to work within the system and reached across the aisle countless times for the greater good of society. It's now time for Republicans to bow gracefully to the laws of physics as well as the Constitution or risk alienating the majority of society for at least a generation.
That final sentence says it all and needs to be highlighted repeatedly in all discussions of the issue. It was always about cementing and maintaining control over information, science, morality, religion, privilege, money, and power at the expense of all others who don't fit the 20th Century conservative ideal of "real America".
The end is already in sight as the 21st Century heads towards a more open, interconnected, inclusive, and multi-cultural society, despite the attempts of dark forces of 20th century racism, sexism, homophobia, and more in sabotaging the eventuality of the process. Just look at history. At every big crossroad, progressivism eventually won but not until generational demographic change occurred. That same change is happening now.
It's a basic law of the universe: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Progressives had their time in the early to mid 20th Century but had to cede power when society veered rightward in 1980 to conservatives. But they continued to work within the system and reached across the aisle countless times for the greater good of society. It's now time for Republicans to bow gracefully to the laws of physics as well as the Constitution or risk alienating the majority of society for at least a generation.
5
The 4-4 split will soon be ended. The signs all point to Clinton winning the presidency. Either Garland will be confirmed during the lameduck session, with Clinton's approval, or she will appoint the next justice. Having waited for many months now for confirmation of the 9th justice, which will end the longstanding, rightwing majority on the Supreme Court, we can wait a few more weeks, I think.
Any American who wants a civil, well-governed country must vote in this election only for qualified, socially conscious democrats and independents who want to restore social and financial equity and justice in OUR country.
Supreme Court Justices should not be selected, as Mr. Scalia, Mr. Thomas and others were, for their radical-right , corporate, sexist leanings. They must be above party politics. Judge Garland has proven over and over that he is a fabulous candidate for the position.
November 9, when democrats and independents have been elected by a large majority, WE must each contact our Senators and demand that they Confirm Judge Garland Now so OUR United States Supreme Court can function as it was designed. OUR democracy depends on it.
Supreme Court Justices should not be selected, as Mr. Scalia, Mr. Thomas and others were, for their radical-right , corporate, sexist leanings. They must be above party politics. Judge Garland has proven over and over that he is a fabulous candidate for the position.
November 9, when democrats and independents have been elected by a large majority, WE must each contact our Senators and demand that they Confirm Judge Garland Now so OUR United States Supreme Court can function as it was designed. OUR democracy depends on it.
6
So, when will President Obama rescind Garland's nomination?
November 7th or before?
This would make it clear (as if it weren't already) that each vote for President has a tremendous impact beyond the Oval Office.
November 8th?
If he doesn't do it then, SCOTUS becomes even more politicized.
If Hillary wins, the Senate could approve Garland simply to prevent her from nominating Scalia's replacement.
If Donald wins, though, Garland's nomination could give the Senate a chance (misplaced and naive as this sounds) to install a respected jurist before Trump is sworn in.
January 20, 2017?
Or does President Obama do nothing and let the nomination languish?
Someone or some team in the White House has gamed this out. I'd love to know their thinking on this.
November 7th or before?
This would make it clear (as if it weren't already) that each vote for President has a tremendous impact beyond the Oval Office.
November 8th?
If he doesn't do it then, SCOTUS becomes even more politicized.
If Hillary wins, the Senate could approve Garland simply to prevent her from nominating Scalia's replacement.
If Donald wins, though, Garland's nomination could give the Senate a chance (misplaced and naive as this sounds) to install a respected jurist before Trump is sworn in.
January 20, 2017?
Or does President Obama do nothing and let the nomination languish?
Someone or some team in the White House has gamed this out. I'd love to know their thinking on this.
3
Judge Garland is a very patient man. He waited out the nomination process to his current seat for even longer than he has so far since he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
I would be surprised if President Clinton did nor renominate him in the unlikely even that President Obama withdrew his nomination.
I would be surprised if President Clinton did nor renominate him in the unlikely even that President Obama withdrew his nomination.
With respect, wholecrush, you do note that your choice of language in "gamed this out" represents exactly what this editorial deplores, do you not?
This is an excellent question.
A related issue is that many Democrats are pressing HRC to announce that even if the Senate refuses to act on Garland through the remainder of Obama's term, Mr. Garland will be her nominee.
Aside from courtesy to Mr. Garland, Democrats in tough races argue that announcing this now would help them in their races, and also be seen as reaching out to the Republicans -- clearly less antagonizing than nominating someone very liberal.
I can see this point, but I can see another one -- something must be done to stop this tactic of refusing to do the senate's duty. If I were a newly-elected HRC I would offer the Republicans a deal: do something so this tactic will never happen again and get Garland. Refuse that, then the nominee will be very liberal, and very young ... and the battle ratchets up.
A related issue is that many Democrats are pressing HRC to announce that even if the Senate refuses to act on Garland through the remainder of Obama's term, Mr. Garland will be her nominee.
Aside from courtesy to Mr. Garland, Democrats in tough races argue that announcing this now would help them in their races, and also be seen as reaching out to the Republicans -- clearly less antagonizing than nominating someone very liberal.
I can see this point, but I can see another one -- something must be done to stop this tactic of refusing to do the senate's duty. If I were a newly-elected HRC I would offer the Republicans a deal: do something so this tactic will never happen again and get Garland. Refuse that, then the nominee will be very liberal, and very young ... and the battle ratchets up.
Or maybe, this is better. Instead of having a single person decide huge issues, the court really needs to work to get a 5-3 consensus. At times over the past few years it seem the only sanity on this court, the only person willing to listen and be non partisan, was Kennedy.
4
The Supreme Court is not crippled. Many court decisions over the years have been split decision as one justice or another recused themselves. There have been times in history where there were an even number of judges by design. Split decisions are handled at the district level until they come up again. The system works.
6
"The system works". Except the "system" is to have 9 Justices on the Supreme Court and we don't currently have that. Yes, we can accommodate a temporary reduction until we get back to the 9 expected seats, but when Congress decides that it doesn't matter if there are 8 (or 7, or 6) as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, then the system is not working.
1
What cases did Antonin Scalia recuse himelf from? Any at all?
2
A split decision because of the recusal of one of the justices does happen occasionally. But this is completely different from the current situation in which the court has been completely hobbled by Republicans who don't like the President of the opposite party. I believe that most Americans are able to comprehend the difference.
2
This article presumes that the 5 to 4 majority that ruled in favor of Bush to be President over Gore was political but does not presume that the interference by the Florida Supreme Court was not being political in ruling for a recount. I voted for Gore but I believe that Bush won Florida based on the rules as set up by the Florida Legislature under their Constitutional right to set the rules for elections within Florida. That the Florida Attorney General was quick on the trigger does not change that fact.
We need to move on from this misconception of that outcome. Even Democratic papers in Florida had to admit that a recount would have given the nod to Bush.
We need to move on from this misconception of that outcome. Even Democratic papers in Florida had to admit that a recount would have given the nod to Bush.
7
Bush's Florida campaign manager was the Secretary of State who ran the election, and introduced such innovations as "butterfly ballots".
The Scalia Court was blind to conflicted interest in anything.
The Scalia Court was blind to conflicted interest in anything.
2
Setting aside whether or not the Bush v Gore decision was political, the Supreme Court had no Constitutional authority to rule on the recount procedures in Florida. That authority rested with Florida.
Even Sandra Day O'Connor has, in recent years, spoken with regret of the Supreme Court's decision to intervene. And Scalia, if memory serves, justified the Court's intervention using the feeble argument that going forward with the Florida recount would further delay the election's outcome and would, thus, make America's political system appear dysfunctional to the rest of the world. How'd that work out for you, Tony?
Even Sandra Day O'Connor has, in recent years, spoken with regret of the Supreme Court's decision to intervene. And Scalia, if memory serves, justified the Court's intervention using the feeble argument that going forward with the Florida recount would further delay the election's outcome and would, thus, make America's political system appear dysfunctional to the rest of the world. How'd that work out for you, Tony?
4
The article presumes no such thing. The article speaks to the public perception but makes no judgement itself on that case: The court, particularly after it decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election by a 5-to-4 vote, has struggled to overcome the growing public perception that it is little more than another political body.
As for the recount, it is far from normal for a court to order a stop to a recount, and especially for the ridiculous reasoning of the right wingers on the court: just a lack of time. What made it more egregious was that they wrote it did not set precedent and only applied to the Bush election.
As for the recount, it is far from normal for a court to order a stop to a recount, and especially for the ridiculous reasoning of the right wingers on the court: just a lack of time. What made it more egregious was that they wrote it did not set precedent and only applied to the Bush election.
3
I look at a Democratic landslide, with a majority in both houses, as our best hope for having a viable, functioning government. Unfortunately, Trump and others seem to be setting us up for an armed insurrection if that happens.
7
That has been in the works ever since the craven Wayne LaPierre convinced the gun industry that stoking up fears like his in the public at large will sell hundreds of millions of guns.
1
In the past the party out of power governed best if they did not control everything or if they did it was by a very narrow margin. I think this used to encourage compromises; this changed when the tea party started as they seemingly will not compromise on anything. They prefer no government and a government that does not operate is close enough for them.
2
On the same day I read a marvelous essay by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in his paper, I read this from the Editorial Board:
"The court...has struggled to overcome the growing public perception that it is little more than another political body, no less ruled by partisanship than the other two branches."
What a situation. We have articulate, clearly intelligent members sitting on the bench at the Supreme Court, and they are seen as political as anyone overtly running for office. We have a Republican-led Senate stonewalling and utterly ignoring their clear Constitutional duty for no other reason than they want an hyper-politicized, arch-conservative to replace a deceased Justice.
We have had a good run for a couple hundred years, America. I fear the end is in sight.
"The court...has struggled to overcome the growing public perception that it is little more than another political body, no less ruled by partisanship than the other two branches."
What a situation. We have articulate, clearly intelligent members sitting on the bench at the Supreme Court, and they are seen as political as anyone overtly running for office. We have a Republican-led Senate stonewalling and utterly ignoring their clear Constitutional duty for no other reason than they want an hyper-politicized, arch-conservative to replace a deceased Justice.
We have had a good run for a couple hundred years, America. I fear the end is in sight.
3
One of my hopes for this election is that Mitch McConnell will lose his role as Senate Majority Leader. He has misused the role and done the US no good as a result.
I expect that Ryan will still be top in the House, but if he wants to take a responsible position - he should formally repudiate the Hastert Rule, and allow bills to be voted on even if his unruly mob doesn't entirely agree.
Less party gamesmanship and more running the country, please.
I expect that Ryan will still be top in the House, but if he wants to take a responsible position - he should formally repudiate the Hastert Rule, and allow bills to be voted on even if his unruly mob doesn't entirely agree.
Less party gamesmanship and more running the country, please.
6
Correct me if I'm wrong but if Hillary is elected and the Republicans continue to control the Senate, can we go on ad-infinitum without adding a new SCOTUS justice? I don't see any constitutional provision stating the Senate MUST confirm or even hold hearings on nominees brought before them.
5
"I don't see any constitutional provision stating the Senate MUST confirm or even hold hearings on nominees brought before them." Well, it says that SC seats are filled with Senate advice and consent. Currently they are neither advising nor consenting, and it's even worse than that since they aren't even showing enough gumption and courage to vote down the current nominee. If they don't like a nominee they should vote him/her down; THAT would be doing their job. Currently they are NOT doing their job.
If she follows the Obama plan, she will just nominate a Republican, & hope that makes the GOP like her more.
1
I believe that in the lives of virtually every American living today, we have never seen each and every facet of our government under the control of the Republican Party, and not the Republican Party that our grandfathers might have known but the one today that is rigidly to the right of where most Americans are politically. But if Trump wins the election, and in the process the House and Senate remain in Republican hands, he will be able to pick the next Supreme Court justice, likely a young Scalia or Clarence Thomas type who he says he already favors, and we will then have a completely unfettered hard right government. something we have not had in this country. The Supreme Court will find support for defamation suits against the press (chilling and thereby limiting freedom of the press), allow for more searches (limiting our own freedom), further restrict class action lawsuits, strike down many personal and medical malpractice actions (some frivolous, certainly, but others valuable to root out dangerous products and medical service providers), less support for environmental protections, less restrictions on dangerous guns, and so many other harmful things. So for now, I believe we are better off with a 4-4 split where the Court does not otherwise make these sorts of rulings, and hope Hillary can prevail in November.
1
The Constitution is being subverted by Republican partisanship. The Constitution provides for one Supreme Court. But courts of appeals, now overwhelmingly staffed by liberal judges, get the last word in case after case because the deadlocked Supreme Court is powerless to do anything but let lower court rulings stand.
While the lower court rulings are not binding precedent except in the particular cases decided, this situation means it is very hard for lower courts and lawyers to know what the law is, since courts of appeals do differ in their approaches. Normally, the Supreme Court would resolve those differences.
Mitch McConnell must think he is very clever because he has failed to perform his constitutional duty to advise and consent. But he has betrayed his oath to support the Constitution. He should be thrown out, with all his perverse obstructionist politics.
While the lower court rulings are not binding precedent except in the particular cases decided, this situation means it is very hard for lower courts and lawyers to know what the law is, since courts of appeals do differ in their approaches. Normally, the Supreme Court would resolve those differences.
Mitch McConnell must think he is very clever because he has failed to perform his constitutional duty to advise and consent. But he has betrayed his oath to support the Constitution. He should be thrown out, with all his perverse obstructionist politics.
4
We have too many deplorable senators . The GOP leaders are destroying their own party. That is the reason 16 seasoned experience governors and senators lost to a new comer nonpolitician crazy Looney racist self-centered businessman Mr.Trump. GOP is now a party of NO and a big bunch of obstructionist. They work only a few days in a year and take full salary. The congress is run by the lobbyists. These GOP leaders put our democracy at stake. They should be thrown out . They have no shame.
3
I'm a Democrat. I say allow the most extreme right wing Justice to be nominated. From abortion to crime to Government subsidies, it is the red states who have sky high numbers in every depressing category. If there is a God, I'd ponder the punishment for slavery and racism has been haunting the South for 150 years. Here they have away out, let the party fall on a thug con artist Trump, then rebuild in a more sensible way, minus the crazies. One can be conservative and religious, though I'm neither, but crazy fact denying, invent one's own world and facts to back it up, has turned the party into a gang of mentally unstable people on the fringes of decency and intelligence. They are also dragging the country down with their dumb is better approach to everything.
How depressing.
How depressing.
4
While the GOP majority in the US Senate have refused to consider the nomination of moderate Merrick Garland for the vacant position of Associate Justice, should Hilary Clinton win the Presidential election, as well as gaining control of the Senate, one can expect that Garland's approval will be expedited.
Merrick Garland's moderate position is certain to be more acceptable to
GOP voters than would nominees of Hillary Clinton.
Merrick Garland's moderate position is certain to be more acceptable to
GOP voters than would nominees of Hillary Clinton.
1
Acceptable-schmectable.
If she s a real Liberal, she will participate in the process, as it works now, & nominate a Flaming Lefty (William O. Douglas???), & twist elbows in the Senate to confirm.
I'm fed up with the Democrats always playing appeaser to this contemptible modern GOP.
If she s a real Liberal, she will participate in the process, as it works now, & nominate a Flaming Lefty (William O. Douglas???), & twist elbows in the Senate to confirm.
I'm fed up with the Democrats always playing appeaser to this contemptible modern GOP.
4
Biden Rule.
1
The Biden rule does not exist. And if Biden's words are so powerful, then we should follow his latest advice: HOLD HEARINGS. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/6/1523848/-Chuck-Grassley-struggles...
1
And you can imagine that the people most critical of Kaepernick are Republicans who decry the lack of respect....
1
Where is John Roberts? Why has he been silent? His voice has been conspicuously absent for someone who claims to love the institution; as he does. This is THE prime case of the republicans putting party over country. It has to stop!
6
Justices do not comment on public matters. It is grounds for criticism if they do, as witness Justice Ginsburg's admission that her remarks about the current election were ill-considered. Perhaps a little brush-up on the basics of government institutions and their obligations and constraints would be to your benefit.
1
Please. Justices comment on the institution of the court all the time: see Scalia, Tomas, Kennedy
Simply stating the fact that an eight member court is bad for the institution (which it is) is not a political statement per se, and one would think be an important point for a self-proclaimed institutionalist to make. As for restraint; I guess that wouldn't have included Alito's behavior at the State of The Union
Simply stating the fact that an eight member court is bad for the institution (which it is) is not a political statement per se, and one would think be an important point for a self-proclaimed institutionalist to make. As for restraint; I guess that wouldn't have included Alito's behavior at the State of The Union
1
Sound judgment of what's going out in the Supreme Court, and the Congress, both hyper-partisan, creating havoc in the well-being of the entire country. If it were equally shared by both parties, one would have to call for a referendum to settle the issue, kick the unrepresentative politicians out, and re-write the rules, so a functional government may be useful again in serving the people. But this obnoxious dogged obstructionism is mostly republican, filled with hypocrisy, unwilling to concede the right and duty of a President to name the next judge to the Supreme Court, assuming that the individual fulfills the requisites required by the job. This irrational obstructionism is, really, dereliction of duty, and cause for dismissal. And we need to restore decency and civics, and requiring individuals well educated, so they wouldn't dare deny science, evolution and climate change as if hired as political prostitutes by special interests (i.e. coal and gas/oil). We need enlightened individuals to do their job efficient and effectively, for the good of our diversified and inclusive society. And electing and confirming a judge with an open mind is one of them.
4
This could be a long fight. If Hilz wins, but the Senate (likely) stays in Repub hands...well, we may have a stalemate.
She won't nominate someone the Repub Senate would consent to. They will only take a person that maintains the conservative balance that Scalia afforded. And Hilz won't do that.
What to do? Maybe in 2-years of this, the Senate could flip. But, don't hold your breath.
It may all come down to a lawsuit filed by Hilz, asking the SCt itself to intervene -- and decide what duty the Senate has (under Article Two, Clause Two of the Constitution) to hold hearings and give such consent.
She won't nominate someone the Repub Senate would consent to. They will only take a person that maintains the conservative balance that Scalia afforded. And Hilz won't do that.
What to do? Maybe in 2-years of this, the Senate could flip. But, don't hold your breath.
It may all come down to a lawsuit filed by Hilz, asking the SCt itself to intervene -- and decide what duty the Senate has (under Article Two, Clause Two of the Constitution) to hold hearings and give such consent.
23
God blessed America by taking Antonin to Scalia to his rendezvous with the almighty judgment of the Lord in her black bisexual single parent ex-convict drug addict supernatural guise.
1
IF the election results in Sec.Clinton being elected President AND the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (or it is a 50/50 tie, which means that VP Kaine votes to give the majority to the Democrats) then I expect to see the "lame duck" Republicans rapidly bring Judge Garland's nomination to a vote and place him on the Supreme Court.
The Republicans fear that if elected President Clinton would withdraw Judge Garland's nomination in January and put forth someone younger and possibly less conservative. It will be a nomination and vote process faster than ever seen before.
The Republicans fear that if elected President Clinton would withdraw Judge Garland's nomination in January and put forth someone younger and possibly less conservative. It will be a nomination and vote process faster than ever seen before.
3
In my view, the "crippled Supreme Court" is indicative of a crippled United States. Based on the character of the current GOP candidate for president AND THE MILLIONS THAT SUPPORT HIM I see this as the indisputable tipping point marking the decline of our country as the predominant world power, soon to be surpassed by China which is investing in infrastructure and improving the lives of it's 1.2 billion citizens while our infrastructure continues to crumple and we consider a person like the GOP candidate, with no stature or decency as a leader of our country. On a slightly positive note, at least the current makeup of the court, split 4-4 down the middle, is MUCH MORE LIKELY to make the CORRECT RULING than it ever was when the deceased Scalia was able to wield his poison pen. His presence made the lives of those affected by his malignant interpretation of our Constitution far worse off than their lives ever would have been had a fair-minded jurist sat in his chair instead.
3
Republican obstruction RE: Merrick Garland and ALL judicial nominations (as there have only been 2 Circuit Court & 16 District Court confirmations since January 2015) comes from a DEEP sense of entitlement Republicans have regarding the federal courts.....They feel only GOP Presidents should make nominations to the courts....
The best thing to rectify this unprecedented obstruction is to elect Hillary Clinton and give her a Democratic led senate, in that way sanity will be returned to the judicial confirmation process...
The best thing to rectify this unprecedented obstruction is to elect Hillary Clinton and give her a Democratic led senate, in that way sanity will be returned to the judicial confirmation process...
4
Oh, I thought American justice system is at least not flawed. I was wrong in my belief. Politics is everywhere.
1
Senate Democrats MUST declare that under no circumstances will any Trump nominated justice be granted a hearing until, either A.) Judge Garland is confirmed or B) a Democrat is President. This must be accomplished by any means necessary.
6
I thought it was the GOP that was supposedly being "obstructionist". Mercy! It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
2
Why does the NYT have a problem with something that's all the rage with everyone these days, including themselves? Take a look:
- Obama issues rules when he can't have his way. Too bad he can't issue one for his nominee
- The Senate stymies a president who won't acknowledge political reality, instead acts as if his presidency is kingship
- The NYT breaks every rule in the book, then some, to publish ancient tax records to make a point, mostly theirs
- The millenniums promise to abstain in droves, miffed that the world they live in is a much tougher world, all the fault of previous generations
Everyone's mad, so the ends justifies the means. Live with it.
- Obama issues rules when he can't have his way. Too bad he can't issue one for his nominee
- The Senate stymies a president who won't acknowledge political reality, instead acts as if his presidency is kingship
- The NYT breaks every rule in the book, then some, to publish ancient tax records to make a point, mostly theirs
- The millenniums promise to abstain in droves, miffed that the world they live in is a much tougher world, all the fault of previous generations
Everyone's mad, so the ends justifies the means. Live with it.
3
The Senate is the one ignoring the political reality that the Supreme Court vacancy occurred during THIS president's term of office. Since when did a president's term end early? Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution gives the President the power to nominate and appoint judges to the supreme Court. President Obama has done his part, he's submitted Judge Garland. We are waiting for the Senate to advise and consent. Not holding hearings is a straight up power play. It is the Senate that has violated their oath of office.
2
The greatest enemy of America is the Republican Party.
The fastest, cheapest and most efficient way of ridding ourselves
of such despicable vermin is in the voting booth.
The fastest, cheapest and most efficient way of ridding ourselves
of such despicable vermin is in the voting booth.
10
By not voting on the nomination of Justice Garland, the Senate is exercising its right to NOT consent to his appointment.
What part of the Constitution of the United States does the esteemed Editorial Board NOT UNDERSTAND on this matter?
If you are so interested in a fully-staffed Supreme Court, why aren't you arguing that Barack Obama appoint someone that COULD garner the required consent?
Oh...Sorry...I got it...Partisan politics as long as it is YOUR politics.
What part of the Constitution of the United States does the esteemed Editorial Board NOT UNDERSTAND on this matter?
If you are so interested in a fully-staffed Supreme Court, why aren't you arguing that Barack Obama appoint someone that COULD garner the required consent?
Oh...Sorry...I got it...Partisan politics as long as it is YOUR politics.
5
Actually, the Constitution prescribes a process, which the President initiated with his nomination of a replacement Justice. The Senate has, so far, refused to engage in the Constitutionally mandated process. If the Senate continues to refuse their Constitutional responsibility, perhaps the Executive could fall back on Common Law (silence implies consent) and schedule the swearing in of a ninth Supreme Court Justice.
Taking the ball and bat home because the rules aren't in their favor is no excuse. If they think Judge Garland is unqualified, then they need to hold hearings and put their objections on the record. This is a straight up power play.
1
Obama DID nominate someone who the Senate approved of...I guess in your zeal to spout off your talking points, you forgot to do your research on that account. You are right that the Senate doesn't have to consent, but they do have to ADVISE; by refusing to even consider Garland they are neglecting their constitutional duty.
1
Apparently this is what the demos should have done to deny Scalia's appointment. That's where this disgraceful congress has moved us to.
1
And by "unable to decide the nation's most pressing issues," the liberal establishment (including the NY Times Editorial Board) means, "unable to ignore express provisions of the Constitution they don't like and create new 'rights' from the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of the Due Process clause."
2
Which provisions are the court's ignoring?
The grammatical ones.
1
Continues to be shocking.
The Republicans in the House and Senate are determined to break this country - ruin it's economy, punish its people, disrupt or break the judiciary. To what stupid end?
This is an unfolding tragedy.
After the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked what we had. His reply: "A republic, sir, if you can keep it."
We're losing against these GOP nuts....
The Republicans in the House and Senate are determined to break this country - ruin it's economy, punish its people, disrupt or break the judiciary. To what stupid end?
This is an unfolding tragedy.
After the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin was asked what we had. His reply: "A republic, sir, if you can keep it."
We're losing against these GOP nuts....
4
You see where religion has brought America? Deadlock. Republicans, leave religion at home and stop playing politics with it.
3
Hillary must come away from the election with more than just the presidency. She must also win enough power to manage the country without the constant objection of the Republicans who, over the last 8 years, have decided that it was more important to thwart President Obama at every turn rather than play their role in running the country. I expect that, for the last 7 months, they have been strategizing on how to block any Democrat nominated justice for 4 years.
1
American politics in 2016 also incorporates a Congress paid obscene salaries and platinum benefits by we, the people, while they have barely managed to put in 100 days of work this year. For every 15 days they show up, they promptly decamp for 7+ weeks of "vacation," a perk unthinkable in any other work environment, and recklessly irresponsible in the extreme. The SCOTUS and, in fact, the entire federal judiciary, have been deliberately hobbled and crippled by GOTPower-uber alles thugs and ideologues, who have neither interest in a functional government, nor in the welfare of the American people. Their only goal is to curry favor with their plutocrat handlers, in hopes of enriching themselves in the process. This is not, in fact, the "fault" of the Democrats, nor of President Obama - this is entirely a function of a hard right wing skewed GOTP completely divorced from the reality that governance requires hard work, serious policy debate based upon sober analysis of the issues at hand, and a willingness to compromise in making difficult national policy decisions. A party dedicated to gutting the right and ability of millions of Americans to vote, to obstructing every single initiative put forth by our African American President, and to eviscerating the very foundations of our government by refusing to perform their Constitutional obligation is a party in need of a permanent vacation.
4
Frankly, whatever your politics are, the eight judge court has been a great and healthy thing for SCOTUS. Why? This may come as a shock, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to issue sweeping, binding proclamations on the social issues of the day, Stunting the legislative process in the bargain! Its job, like any court, is to decide cases before it on the narrowest grounds capable of resolving the underlying question of law dispute. An even number of judges has forced (gasp!) compromise and (oh, the horror!) judicial moderation from an institution that has come to think of itself as a super legislature since the Warren Court, fetishized by holy rollers and social justice warriors alike. I won't pretend that the Senate Republicans had such long term stewardship in mind when abusing the Garland nomination. But complaints like this one are kind of shallow.
2
Take back the Senate and House 2016! Minimum 70 Dems US Senate and 300 US House of Reps minimum and minimum 30 Dems Governor and take back all state legislatures. It must be done and not be weaklings! The ONLY way to fix this and permanently is to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the bigot racist unAmerican unpatriotic treasonous traitor Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Then and ONLY then will the filibusters and obstructionism and so called religious freedoms and Corporations United end and permanently. And NO the American people DON'T want a divided government or a check on the Hillary White House and never did! More government and regulations not less. Higher taxes not lower. Single payer health and free education for all thanks to the rich and corporations and higher taxes. Socialism and populism. No more austerity!
Then and ONLY then will the filibusters and obstructionism and so called religious freedoms and Corporations United end and permanently. And NO the American people DON'T want a divided government or a check on the Hillary White House and never did! More government and regulations not less. Higher taxes not lower. Single payer health and free education for all thanks to the rich and corporations and higher taxes. Socialism and populism. No more austerity!
3
If Hillary wins the election, the Senate Republicans should immediately confirm Garland. He's a sensible liberal and a better choice than what we'd get from Clinton.
Have have you ever reexamined your role in pushing for Iraq war.? Once again your smug attitude is there for all of us who remember you r beating war drums with George W. Bush.
2
The supreme court has been republican for over 30 years. It is time for a change. We need some judges with life experiences. We need to pass some type of legislation that will forever be our boundary on the cutoff date of when a sitting president can nominate a new justice and time limits set on how long congress can drag their feet before acting on such a nomination. This year has been an abomination and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, especially my senator Grassley - but since when does that party have any shame?
2
The Supreme Court of the United States is the least democratic branch of our divided limited power republic. Law is gender, race, color, socioeconomic, political, ethnic, sectarian, educational history plus arithmetic.
Law is neither just nor fair nor logical nor objective nor moral. Maintenance of some minimal level of consistency of legal predictability plus some minimal level of equitable flexibility is all that the law requires. African enslavement and Jim Crow were both legal.
The notion that Supreme Court justices are apolitical is belied by their appointment selection process and their predictably ideological opinions. In the absence of good faith negotiation and compromise the Founding Fathers wisely intended government gridlock as the best means of preserving the status quo ante and doing no harm. With only eight equally divided justices the current Supreme Court is falling in line.
A crippled Supreme Court in this partisan political era is a good thing. We do not need another Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Bush, Citizen's United or Shelby County decision.
How many justices to we really need on the Supreme Court? We certainly do not need another elderly moderate white Jewish male like Merrick Garland. The Supreme Court is all Jewish and Catholic. My personal preference is for a young liberal progressive civil rights advocate black female Protestant.
Law is neither just nor fair nor logical nor objective nor moral. Maintenance of some minimal level of consistency of legal predictability plus some minimal level of equitable flexibility is all that the law requires. African enslavement and Jim Crow were both legal.
The notion that Supreme Court justices are apolitical is belied by their appointment selection process and their predictably ideological opinions. In the absence of good faith negotiation and compromise the Founding Fathers wisely intended government gridlock as the best means of preserving the status quo ante and doing no harm. With only eight equally divided justices the current Supreme Court is falling in line.
A crippled Supreme Court in this partisan political era is a good thing. We do not need another Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Bush, Citizen's United or Shelby County decision.
How many justices to we really need on the Supreme Court? We certainly do not need another elderly moderate white Jewish male like Merrick Garland. The Supreme Court is all Jewish and Catholic. My personal preference is for a young liberal progressive civil rights advocate black female Protestant.
3
What is so special about 9? Maybe 7 would be better? Maybe 11, one for each circuit with the requirement that a justice should reside at the time of appointment in the circuit whose seat she represents? Maybe FDR's up to 15 when justices over 70 don't retire?
The 8 really seem to be doing fine. Let the circuits work through their differences a bit. The SCt doesn't need to take every case. Cert. Denied is its most consistent and least controversial ruling.
Let's also stop trying to overlay political ideology and political dysfunction onto the Court. Ginsberg is not a Democratic justice. Scalia was not a Republican justice. They had differing legal approaches but that is not the same thing as differing political ideology. Ask Ginsberg. They were friends and colleagues not political adversaries. "Get over it." Is a good mantra.
The 8 really seem to be doing fine. Let the circuits work through their differences a bit. The SCt doesn't need to take every case. Cert. Denied is its most consistent and least controversial ruling.
Let's also stop trying to overlay political ideology and political dysfunction onto the Court. Ginsberg is not a Democratic justice. Scalia was not a Republican justice. They had differing legal approaches but that is not the same thing as differing political ideology. Ask Ginsberg. They were friends and colleagues not political adversaries. "Get over it." Is a good mantra.
2
The Republicans won't accept any appointment to the Supreme Court of anyone less corrupted, conflicted, and confused than the most overrated US jurist of all time, the late Antonin Scalia.
2
I do not understand how a literate American could believe this.
1
The SCOTUS will deal with it and so will we. Stop making it seem like the end of the world when the Democrats don't get their way. It's sounding like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum in public. It's embarrassing.
Whatever you think of the Republicans obstruction, stuff like this happens. We'll live. Give me a break with the hysteria, NYT.
Whatever you think of the Republicans obstruction, stuff like this happens. We'll live. Give me a break with the hysteria, NYT.
5
No, the Republican obstruction is NOT normal. The Democrats have never refused to hold hearings for Supreme Court justices. And the people waiting for their cases to be heard; and those in limbo due to the 4-4 splits is an unconscionable delay. It is the Senate who is holding the temper tantrum. They just say NO, like a toddler.
1
Well, we can thank Mitch McConnell for blocking confirmation hearings. I wonder if, if Hillary is elected, she'll pick someone less middle-of-the-road than Merrick Garland, and then will Mitch McConnell say that the will of the people is to wait for the next Republican president, whenever that may occur? Nothing like rewriting the laws of the land on the fly, day to day...the one sure thing is that he'll have another excuse, and another, and another, to try to delay again, and again, and again.
4
What's most depressing about the Republicans refusal to hold hearings is that the Democrats have not made an issue out of this outrageous behavior.
Meanwhile, Trump brags and brays about the fact that the Republicans have blocked our president from nominating Garland, and has submitted a potential list of replacements for the vacant seat.
Why aren't the Democrats making this a campaign issue?
Meanwhile, Trump brags and brays about the fact that the Republicans have blocked our president from nominating Garland, and has submitted a potential list of replacements for the vacant seat.
Why aren't the Democrats making this a campaign issue?
35
Perhaps because the Supreme Court issue is of immense importance to many elements on the right, and the Dems are trying to appeal to some of those voters. Best not to bring attention to it.
2
It is really a showdown of faith vs. reason, where the reasonable fear they will be outvoted by people who fear the wrath of a synthetic personage who is purportedly ever on the lookout for an excuse to terminate this planet.
1
So they hold a hearing and reject him, why waste the time and money on a hearing that will end up in a rejection? The dems will not make it a huge campaign issue because there are a lot of folks that don't want Garland as the next judge. It would also be a death knell for any Dem voting for him in a state that supports gun rights.
1
I believe Ms. Clinton will be elected President, and I also believe the Republicans will still be in a position to block her appointments, so I think as we lose justices, the conservatives will gain a majority on the court. I am voting Libertarian,
It's simple: Blame the GOP for putting power and politics ahead of their nation.
I'll bet Mitch McConnell fast-tracks Merrick Garland's nomination on November 9th, when it's clear he'll be MINORITY Leader on January 3rd!
And, if, SOMEHOW, the GOP holds the Senate and Clinton becomes President, McConnell will come up with a whole new slew of excuses NOT to confirm her nominations, as if his current one ("Wait for the people's decision") vanishes as if it never existed.
That's his motto: Power and Party before Patriotism.
I'll bet Mitch McConnell fast-tracks Merrick Garland's nomination on November 9th, when it's clear he'll be MINORITY Leader on January 3rd!
And, if, SOMEHOW, the GOP holds the Senate and Clinton becomes President, McConnell will come up with a whole new slew of excuses NOT to confirm her nominations, as if his current one ("Wait for the people's decision") vanishes as if it never existed.
That's his motto: Power and Party before Patriotism.
13
Balderdash poppycock tommyrot and nonsense
The Eight robes are perfectly capable of adjudicating 8/9 of what they did last year, or 9/9 if the work a little harder, maybe an hour a day longer, the clerks anyway
And Joe Biden (who?) said sometime back that we as a country could wait a year when the president was of the 'wrong' party
-
piffle and sniffle waa waa waa
The Eight robes are perfectly capable of adjudicating 8/9 of what they did last year, or 9/9 if the work a little harder, maybe an hour a day longer, the clerks anyway
And Joe Biden (who?) said sometime back that we as a country could wait a year when the president was of the 'wrong' party
-
piffle and sniffle waa waa waa
2
This sad comment shows the author to be utterly ignorant of how the Supreme Court works. Since the Court is deadlocked, lower appellate court decisions that could have been reversed must be simply left intact.
The courts of appeals are now more liberal than they have been in some time. This means in case after case, the Supreme Court is powerless to overturn liberal decisions unless one side or the other blinks. The justices do not blink, so liberal courts increasingly get the last word.
This situation is far from what the founders envisioned and it is exposing the sheer incompetence of Mitch McConnell's approach: fat cats who once counted on a conservative Supreme Court to protect them are forced to settled when a liberal lower court rules against them because there is no appeal option any more.
The courts of appeals are now more liberal than they have been in some time. This means in case after case, the Supreme Court is powerless to overturn liberal decisions unless one side or the other blinks. The justices do not blink, so liberal courts increasingly get the last word.
This situation is far from what the founders envisioned and it is exposing the sheer incompetence of Mitch McConnell's approach: fat cats who once counted on a conservative Supreme Court to protect them are forced to settled when a liberal lower court rules against them because there is no appeal option any more.
17
I decline your characterization of my comments as ignorant, and reciprocate with an equivalent characterization towards you
(1) I prefer to avoid judicial rescue, SCOTUS v the Circuits, when such is partisan, rescue either from or for Lefto or Conservo, even as I am self-styled right wing extremist, cro-magnon neanderthal troglodyte or worse, and prefer Rightwards rulings;
I maintain some abstraction of textualism and originalism regardless of whether that falls out Left or Right, or the dread 'activism,' and eschew the Living Const
I prefer to avoid such judicial partisan rescue, favoring legislative rescue; I am a legislative supremacist, and thus decline judicial supremacism and review!! OMG , preferring that such review is advisory ("precatory")
= =
Re judicial review and supremacism, I have indeed read the Federalist Papers on such, a few times, the reasoning is persuasive;
and also read John Marshall's Marbury/ Madison, a pretty close lift
=
(2) The ignorance I attribute to you, danger of evenly split Court, is that if/when the Court cannot decide, then ONE main function, reconciliation between diverging Circuits, fails
That Is, when the Ninth, aka LaLaLand differs from the Eleventh, ie DC, aka SCOTUS Lite, and SCOTUS splits, itself,
then the law is A in 9 and Not-A in 11
and THAT is chaos:
if/when litigant A in 9 and litigant B in 11 go at each other, thus a ripe field for jurisdiction shopping (as if we needed such encouragement anyway)
(1) I prefer to avoid judicial rescue, SCOTUS v the Circuits, when such is partisan, rescue either from or for Lefto or Conservo, even as I am self-styled right wing extremist, cro-magnon neanderthal troglodyte or worse, and prefer Rightwards rulings;
I maintain some abstraction of textualism and originalism regardless of whether that falls out Left or Right, or the dread 'activism,' and eschew the Living Const
I prefer to avoid such judicial partisan rescue, favoring legislative rescue; I am a legislative supremacist, and thus decline judicial supremacism and review!! OMG , preferring that such review is advisory ("precatory")
= =
Re judicial review and supremacism, I have indeed read the Federalist Papers on such, a few times, the reasoning is persuasive;
and also read John Marshall's Marbury/ Madison, a pretty close lift
=
(2) The ignorance I attribute to you, danger of evenly split Court, is that if/when the Court cannot decide, then ONE main function, reconciliation between diverging Circuits, fails
That Is, when the Ninth, aka LaLaLand differs from the Eleventh, ie DC, aka SCOTUS Lite, and SCOTUS splits, itself,
then the law is A in 9 and Not-A in 11
and THAT is chaos:
if/when litigant A in 9 and litigant B in 11 go at each other, thus a ripe field for jurisdiction shopping (as if we needed such encouragement anyway)
2
Mr.McConnell is a horrible man. The worst part of that is that he doesn't care that anybody views him that way. You could burn him in effigy on the Capitol steps and he would simply poke his turtle- like -caricature of a head to the window and toast his reflection, because he is sure he knows what is better for the country than the country does. After all, he probably gets the giggles over Trump as president, so he can run amok in that power vacuum until Trump does something dumb enough to get impeached and then (as he smiles in the reflection) He will just placate Pence while making him his stooge. Burn away baby. We the People, by his estimation are fools anyway.
8
It isn't complicated. Don't like what is going on in Congress, vote them out. Even if you imagine the electorate et al is not batty enough to send Donald Trump to the Oval Office they ARE batty enough to keep sending these reprobates back to Congress year after year.
It's almost as if we send the worst of the worst into government. Because no one else would have them in a real job.
It's almost as if we send the worst of the worst into government. Because no one else would have them in a real job.
13
McConnell is an anti-patriot, a political terrorist who is willing to shred the fabric of our Constitution in order to carry out jihad against our nation's first black President. This is his openly declared mission.
In November, should he remain Senate leader, he will no doubt find "reasons" to once again shirk his Constitutional duty to advise and consent (unless, of course, an unthinkable Trump victory occurs).
The GOP is only about party, rich white men, big corporations and guns and not at all about the welfare of our nation. In November people of good conscience and decent spirit must throw the bums out. They've been lying and selling snake oil far too long.
In November, should he remain Senate leader, he will no doubt find "reasons" to once again shirk his Constitutional duty to advise and consent (unless, of course, an unthinkable Trump victory occurs).
The GOP is only about party, rich white men, big corporations and guns and not at all about the welfare of our nation. In November people of good conscience and decent spirit must throw the bums out. They've been lying and selling snake oil far too long.
25
Since the republicans in congress think nothing of suing our President, I feel strongly that our President should sue the Senate for its unconstitutional behavior.
18
They have obviously decided that their goals are best achieved in a system of injustice, where the powerful and cunning steal the spoils. The republican's ideal world is best exemplified by the corrupt system that we see in today's Russia, thus the attraction to Putin.
32
Way to go, GOP:
Nay to Garland,
Yea to DJT.
We can vote, too, you know, and maybe this time we'll get it right.
Nay to Garland,
Yea to DJT.
We can vote, too, you know, and maybe this time we'll get it right.
8
Slap in the face to every American who has fought for this country . We are all disgusted about this . Vote for a new Senate in 2016.
25
Question: Since the senate republicans refuse to allow a nomination, doesn't the issue then become a constitutional issue? That is, shouldn't the justice department sue and fast track the issue to the supreme court? it should be up to the current supreme court to rule on this problem. I'm sure the justices would force the senate to due their sworn duty (they are, in fact, thwarting the constitution that they have sworn to uphold). Since even the most conservative justices want to bring back the respect the court once had before becoming a partisan ideological body, the problem of a few men just saying "No." to doing their job, the justices would give us a ruling on what should be done. Why is the current 8 member court not hearing this as a case?
30
What form of "force the senate" do you think the court would use? The Supreme Court has no authority over the senate. It's the other way around: congress determines how the federal courts are structured.
In terms of the senate as a whole, the only legal and practical remedy for malfeasance is elections. As long as the people reward their representatives for subverting the constitution, that's what they'll do. Democracy at work.
In terms of the senate as a whole, the only legal and practical remedy for malfeasance is elections. As long as the people reward their representatives for subverting the constitution, that's what they'll do. Democracy at work.
2
I thought the New York Times was in favor of free speech, you should not care what is said everyone has the right of free speech, unless you say something a Judge ort Cop finds objectionable then they find you in comtempt, and lock you up. SO MUCH FOR FREE SPEECH, They took an oath to uphold the constitution but that's just a lie. If they do not like what you say you go to jail.
1
It is understandable why the GOP majority in the Senate refuses to hold a vote on the Garland nomination, especially after the conservative bloc on the Court shockingly voted to stay the 4th Circuit opinion in NAACP v. McCrory which brilliantly eviscerated the NC racist voter suppression scheme.
If Roberts' and his conservative cabal had had their way, the voter suppression scheme in NC would be in effect for the important swing state of NC in the upcoming November elections.
If it weren't clear after Roberts' Shelby County decision gutting the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act for Jim Crow states' modification of election laws, NAACP v. McCrory makes it obvious that the conservatives on the Court are in the unprincipled and unethical business of black and other minority voter suppression, to game elections in favor of GOP candidates.
Along with Citizens United, Shelby County was tailor made by the right wing mandarins on the Court to advance the political agenda of the far right, while ignoring precedent, and the overwhelming will of the Congress.
It's no wonder then that McConnell and his fellow Vichy Republicans don't want a vote on a jurist who has shown himself to be honest, honorable and principled throughout his judicial career.
If Roberts' and his conservative cabal had had their way, the voter suppression scheme in NC would be in effect for the important swing state of NC in the upcoming November elections.
If it weren't clear after Roberts' Shelby County decision gutting the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act for Jim Crow states' modification of election laws, NAACP v. McCrory makes it obvious that the conservatives on the Court are in the unprincipled and unethical business of black and other minority voter suppression, to game elections in favor of GOP candidates.
Along with Citizens United, Shelby County was tailor made by the right wing mandarins on the Court to advance the political agenda of the far right, while ignoring precedent, and the overwhelming will of the Congress.
It's no wonder then that McConnell and his fellow Vichy Republicans don't want a vote on a jurist who has shown himself to be honest, honorable and principled throughout his judicial career.
7
Step One of the justice replacement process is the nomination; President Obama completed this with the selection of Merrick Garland. Step Two in the justice replacement process is the Senate approval. Having failed to complete -- nay, even attempt -- the process, hasn't the Senate demonstrated its negligence? Isn't the next obvious step for President Obama to appoint an interim justice? I guess the only other response would be for someone to bring suit against Mitch McConnell and the Senate Judiciary Committee for failing to uphold its duty. And who would rule on that?
3
No, Mr. Baglia. They Congress has demonstrated that the appointment of Garland DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE SENATE.
There is nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES Congress to act on a nomination if that is their choice. They are withholding their consent.
What part of the Constitutional wording don't you under stand? Remember, you need to read the Constitution for what it says, not what you think it says.
There is nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES Congress to act on a nomination if that is their choice. They are withholding their consent.
What part of the Constitutional wording don't you under stand? Remember, you need to read the Constitution for what it says, not what you think it says.
1
So how long should we wait? 1 year, 2 years, 3 years? If they don't find Judge Garland qualified, they need to put their objections on the record.
Well, Owl, you keep demonstrating that you clearly are "reading the Constitution" for what you THINK it says, not what it says. And you keep making the same mistakes.
"CONGRESS" doesn't act on a nomination, the Senate does. And they are not withholding their consent, they are flat out refusing to even undertake the duty of "advise & consent". They withhold their consent when they vote against a nominee, not by refusing to do their job.
You never did have a civics class, did you?
"CONGRESS" doesn't act on a nomination, the Senate does. And they are not withholding their consent, they are flat out refusing to even undertake the duty of "advise & consent". They withhold their consent when they vote against a nominee, not by refusing to do their job.
You never did have a civics class, did you?
2
This is not a tactic invented by Republicans. As the editorial points out, the Democrats did everything in their power to block Bork and Thomas. Ted Kennedy, a man who had no character, attacked Bork's. The Board also conveniently forgets that when Joe Biden was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee he took exactly the same position as Mitch McConnell. expressing the opinion that the Senate should not vote on a nominee during an election cycle. And of course Senators Obama and Kerry attempted to filibuster a vote on the vote to confirm Samuel Alitio. The purpose of a filibuster? to prevent a vote. The Board should at least pretend to be fair.
1
This is not a tactic invented by Republicans. As the editorial points out, the Democrats did everything in their power to block Bork and Thomas. Ted Kennedy, a man who had no character, attacked Bork's. The Board also conveniently forgets that when Joe Biden was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee he took exactly the same position as Mitch McConnell. expressing the opinion that the Senate should not vote on a nominee during an election cycle. And of course Senators Obama and Kerry attempted to filibuster a vote to confirm Samuel Alitio. The purpose of a filibuster? to prevent a vote.
3
Bork and Alito got hearings and votes. The Senate has not even acknowledged Judge Garland. Total obstruction is the same as having nominee fail to get enough votes.
Neither the authors of the Constitution nor the delegates who signed it expected the conservatism or liberalism of Supreme Court justices or their views of presidential candidates to be of any consequence. The founders expected major constitutional issues to be settled not by the Supreme Court, but by the amendment process, as they were in regard to slavery and women’s suffrage, or by new constitutional conventions. The founders would be shocked to learn that today we permit a small group of black-robed partisans to settle constitutional issues that they plainly intended to be settled by the people’s representatives. The recent death of a single justice demonstrated that today Americans’ rights and liberties often hinge on Supreme Court mortality rates. The arguments over what the Constitution says or doesn’t say arises because the document is mute on issues that seemed unimportant or didn’t exist in the 1700s. We need periodically scheduled constitutional conventions—perhaps one a generation—to amend or clarify the Constitution and align it with changing circumstance.
3
The remaining 8 justices have not exercised their power to ensure they have a full 9 justice court. They alone decide what cases they hear and what cases are left for lower courts to decide. Accordingly, they could simply refuse to hear ANY more cases until the Senate fulfills its "advise and consent" duty. Of course Congress could impeach all 8, but if the Senate can't hold hearings on the replacement of 1 justice, they won't do it for 9.
6
The general populace has, over the past few decades, become increasingly polarized. Our elected representatives are even more so. The court reflects these divisions--see the number of cases decided by single vote margins: https://stanfordpolitics.com/the-troubling-partisanship-of-the-supreme-c... . From that piece:
"In the period between 1801 and 1940, less than 2% of all the Supreme Court’s decisions were decided by a 5–4 vote. By contrast, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have seen just over 20% of their cases be decided by this small margin. This shift provides a clear indication that polarization has indeed spread to the judiciary. ...
Modern justices seem to often vote in ideological alignment with the party of the President that appointed them. This phenomenon is relatively new. ... Twentieth century justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Harry Blackmun all leaned liberal despite being appointed by Republican Presidents. Now, these types of justices have become extinct. ..."
Is this the single biggest reason why many Republican leaders have held their noses over Trump's candidacy? They are less afraid of their candidate than they are of a power shift on the court.
Is there any way out of this mess? Can we fix the increasing partisanship on the court without fixing the same within the body politic? Is there any sign that more moderate justices will be considered in the future? It is hard to see.
"In the period between 1801 and 1940, less than 2% of all the Supreme Court’s decisions were decided by a 5–4 vote. By contrast, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have seen just over 20% of their cases be decided by this small margin. This shift provides a clear indication that polarization has indeed spread to the judiciary. ...
Modern justices seem to often vote in ideological alignment with the party of the President that appointed them. This phenomenon is relatively new. ... Twentieth century justices Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Harry Blackmun all leaned liberal despite being appointed by Republican Presidents. Now, these types of justices have become extinct. ..."
Is this the single biggest reason why many Republican leaders have held their noses over Trump's candidacy? They are less afraid of their candidate than they are of a power shift on the court.
Is there any way out of this mess? Can we fix the increasing partisanship on the court without fixing the same within the body politic? Is there any sign that more moderate justices will be considered in the future? It is hard to see.
1
Very true about "holding one's nose an voting for Trump." A 5th rubber stamp lefty and you have the potential to increase executive power for HIllary, beyond what Obama has been able to get away with. The first step towards sanity would be a judge who tends to think and vote like Kennedy.
1
Marvin,
There is no indication that Trump would appoint anyone resembling Kennedy. And maybe not much indication that a relative moderate like Garland would be renominated by Secretary Clinton.
Voting for Trump is, for many of us, impossible to understand. Perhaps more to that point would be the concluding paragraph from Dorothy Rabinowitz's (long time Republican supporter and editorial writer for the WSJ) recent comments ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121 ):
"The end of the election is now in sight. Some among the anti-Hillary brigades have decided, in deference to their exquisite sensibilities, to stay at home on Election Day, rather than vote for Mrs. Clinton. But most Americans will soon make their choice. It will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton—experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane. Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House."
There is no indication that Trump would appoint anyone resembling Kennedy. And maybe not much indication that a relative moderate like Garland would be renominated by Secretary Clinton.
Voting for Trump is, for many of us, impossible to understand. Perhaps more to that point would be the concluding paragraph from Dorothy Rabinowitz's (long time Republican supporter and editorial writer for the WSJ) recent comments ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121 ):
"The end of the election is now in sight. Some among the anti-Hillary brigades have decided, in deference to their exquisite sensibilities, to stay at home on Election Day, rather than vote for Mrs. Clinton. But most Americans will soon make their choice. It will be either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton—experienced, forward-looking, indomitably determined and eminently sane. Her election alone is what stands between the American nation and the reign of the most unstable, proudly uninformed, psychologically unfit president ever to enter the White House."
If the Dems get control of the Senate, and Clinton wins the presidency, the unfilled vacancy on the SCOTUS opens an interesting possibility...Obama becoming a justice on the SCOTUS. I think he'd make a stellar justice, something he's arguably far better suited for than being president (although, I did vote for him twice), and something I'd very much like to see.
10
Best idea I've heard in a while.
That would be totally cool. The thought of that happening makes me Giddy.
That would be totally cool. The thought of that happening makes me Giddy.
1
SCOTUS is sadly partisan. When Sotomayor can say that "...our gender and national origins may may make a difference in our judging...." rather than constitutional law, that is truly terrifying, and she should be recused from deciding on "... the legitimacy of Obama's Executive Action on (illegal) immigration..." Voter supression laws: recent headlines, "VA has found 1000+ cases of voter fraud in just 9 counties;" WA voters can only vote via write-in, no proof of citizenship is required, as everybody is on the 'honor system." How about the illegal in WA who killed innocents and voted three times? I'm happy with just 8 Supremes....if they can't reach a majority vote, then throw it back to the states (ie, the people) and let them re-litigate, or let it stay.
4
If Sotomayor should be recused, then every Catholic Justice, must be and should have been recused from cases involving sexual conduct, marriage, and abortion.
1
In "our gender and national origins may may make a difference in our judging", "may" doesn't mean "is permitted to by law"; it's an admission of reality that judges are human, and subject to unconscious influence of their backgrounds.
""VA has found 1000+ cases of voter fraud in just 9 counties" - actual confirmed in-person voter fraud? Or just dead voters still on the voter rolls, with no evidence that anyone actually voted in dead voters' names?
"WA voters can only vote via write-in" - this proves the need for voter ID laws in the South how?
"the illegal in WA who killed innocents and voted three times" - these initial reports were wrong; Arcan Cetin is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
"if they can't reach a majority vote, then throw it back to the states" - not an unreasonable view.
""VA has found 1000+ cases of voter fraud in just 9 counties" - actual confirmed in-person voter fraud? Or just dead voters still on the voter rolls, with no evidence that anyone actually voted in dead voters' names?
"WA voters can only vote via write-in" - this proves the need for voter ID laws in the South how?
"the illegal in WA who killed innocents and voted three times" - these initial reports were wrong; Arcan Cetin is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
"if they can't reach a majority vote, then throw it back to the states" - not an unreasonable view.
1
The Supreme Court is all Jewish and Catholic when only 2% of Americans are Jewish and 24% are Catholic.
2
Contrary to the expectations of many, I don't believe the election of Hillary Clinton will change Republican minds to hold hearings and approve Judge Garland's nomination.
Mitch McConnell and his rogue party have openly blocked President Obama for 8 years. They declared they would make him fail before he even took the oath of office. Why would we believe that they will not continue their desperate strategy to make a Hillary Clinton government fail? They don't fear the American people. Republicans in the House have gerrymandered safe districts; Republicans in the senate have been able to blame their obstruction on President Obama. Both Houses have the deep pockets of the Koch's, right-wing hate radio and right-wing FOX propaganda to cast blame on Democrats.
Is it possible a Republican controlled senate will not hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee for 8 more years? Yes. Republicans have sold their souls to the devil and the American people were purchased in the bargain.
Mitch McConnell and his rogue party have openly blocked President Obama for 8 years. They declared they would make him fail before he even took the oath of office. Why would we believe that they will not continue their desperate strategy to make a Hillary Clinton government fail? They don't fear the American people. Republicans in the House have gerrymandered safe districts; Republicans in the senate have been able to blame their obstruction on President Obama. Both Houses have the deep pockets of the Koch's, right-wing hate radio and right-wing FOX propaganda to cast blame on Democrats.
Is it possible a Republican controlled senate will not hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee for 8 more years? Yes. Republicans have sold their souls to the devil and the American people were purchased in the bargain.
3
I suggest the oldest jurist resign.
The court has worked fine on 7 before, I see no reason why it won't work again that way.
Otherwise, Congress and our government are working just fine.
Congress is not obligated to vote on Mr. Garland. It's as simple as that.
The court has worked fine on 7 before, I see no reason why it won't work again that way.
Otherwise, Congress and our government are working just fine.
Congress is not obligated to vote on Mr. Garland. It's as simple as that.
2
How about the dumbest resign instead? Of course that would be settling cases in the opposite direction you have in mind, but hey...
If you think Congress and our government are working just fine (doing nothing), I would think you would prefer to maintain the hamstrung SCOTUS we have right now, as your fellow party members do. When you say things are fine as they are, but then advocate for a 4-3 conservative majority, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
If you think Congress and our government are working just fine (doing nothing), I would think you would prefer to maintain the hamstrung SCOTUS we have right now, as your fellow party members do. When you say things are fine as they are, but then advocate for a 4-3 conservative majority, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Please see article 2, section 2. It's as simple as that.
You're right in one sense: only the senate decides what the senate is obligated to do. Then the people decide who the senate is.
You're right in one sense: only the senate decides what the senate is obligated to do. Then the people decide who the senate is.
1
Articles change, or are added....It's as simple as that.
We have this nonsense because the GOP has yet to pay a political price. On Election Day, or in the case of early voting that has already begun in several states Election Month, We the People take our power back. We remind elected officials that they hold power in trust.
The good people of Iowa ought to retire Chuck Grassley, chair of the senate judiciary committee. ALL of the congressional Republicans up for re-election ought to be defeated to make them pay a political price for the politics of obstruction.
Since both McConnell and Ryan are craven political hacks and will be remembered by history as such, they will change their behavior when it starts costing them elections.
We get the government we vote for, therefore #VoteAgainstAllRepublicans.
The good people of Iowa ought to retire Chuck Grassley, chair of the senate judiciary committee. ALL of the congressional Republicans up for re-election ought to be defeated to make them pay a political price for the politics of obstruction.
Since both McConnell and Ryan are craven political hacks and will be remembered by history as such, they will change their behavior when it starts costing them elections.
We get the government we vote for, therefore #VoteAgainstAllRepublicans.
1
Worry not. As soon as it become clear that Crooked Hillary is going to win the election and undoubtedly appoint someone on the far left end of the scale, the Republicans will suddenly find Merrick Garland to be acceptable and appoint him.
1
From Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, and in many other cases over the last 35 years Republican Party appointees to the Supreme Court have eroded the greatest of American ideals best articulated by our nation's first Republican President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg's Address: to wit: "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." How ironic is it that this election determines whether we as a nation are guided our first Republican President's vision for America or the cynical vision held by current day leaders of the Republican Party including Trump, Cruz, and Mitch McConnell. As the NYTimes' Linda Greenhouse stated last week, Justice Scalia’s death has preserved democracy in North Carolina" and, I would add, the democracy in many other states where Republican legislatures want to impose voter suppression laws. A vote for Hillary Clinton will place our Supreme Court back on track toward achieving that greatest of American goals: "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Signed MLB or christopheralberto.com (a former Bernie Sanders supporter)
1
This is THE issue driving the behavior of Republicans in this election, make no mistake about it. Mainstream leaders are supporting Trump (or at least not openly denouncing him) to get one of their own in the White House. Not because anyone thinks that Trump would make a good President; there's simply too much evidence to the contrary .
No, the real prize is getting to put more judges of the "correct" ideological bent on the high court. A Republican Congress can pass any old thing it wants, but an unimpressed Supreme Court can make short work of it. What's the point of trying to gut Social Security, further restrict legal abortions, marginalize the rights of minorities or establish a new Christian state religion, if the Supremes won't play ball?
Today's Republicans do not want a 2-party democracy. They want a dictatorship. You can't really have one in America, however, unless you remove the checks and balances on arbitrary governmental action which the Founders put in place when they created an independent judiciary. So capturing the Court is the sine qua non to the bloodless coup d'état which has been in the works for years. Putting a mongrel like Trump in the White House is a small price to pay for neutering the one institution which protects us all.
If you haven't noticed, you haven't been watching.
No, the real prize is getting to put more judges of the "correct" ideological bent on the high court. A Republican Congress can pass any old thing it wants, but an unimpressed Supreme Court can make short work of it. What's the point of trying to gut Social Security, further restrict legal abortions, marginalize the rights of minorities or establish a new Christian state religion, if the Supremes won't play ball?
Today's Republicans do not want a 2-party democracy. They want a dictatorship. You can't really have one in America, however, unless you remove the checks and balances on arbitrary governmental action which the Founders put in place when they created an independent judiciary. So capturing the Court is the sine qua non to the bloodless coup d'état which has been in the works for years. Putting a mongrel like Trump in the White House is a small price to pay for neutering the one institution which protects us all.
If you haven't noticed, you haven't been watching.
3
They want a theocracy. That is why they enacted the unconstitutional law that inserted the words "under God" into the loyalty oath American children grow up reciting daily in school. It opened Pandora's box for them.
The GOP has made Congress dysfunctional and has now the Supreme Court dysfunctional. What will it take for people to wake up and vote them out?
It has to be more than just plain old gerrymandering. Our very democracy is at stake.
Jerry NYC
It has to be more than just plain old gerrymandering. Our very democracy is at stake.
Jerry NYC
1
In the cases you identified having a split court does not always favor the Republicans as that would leave a lower court ruling in place. In some of these cases the courts ruled more towards what the liberal justices might have have voted. So the outcome of these cases do not appear to be the motivation behind the Republican impasse. I would think it is more because their intense dislike for President Obama. If HRC were to become POTUS I would hope that they might just at least accept a vote in the senate. If Judge Garland is presumed best in the land, would HRC nominate him again?
If, as is likely, Hillary Clinton wins and the Senate majority goes Democratic, the unprecedented obstruction of the (
GOP Senate in refusing to even consider Judge Garland will blow up in their faces. It is such irresponsible nihilism that directly led to the nomination of Donald Trump, and the Donald's expected loss couldn't happen to a "better" bunch of cynical lazy politicians.
GOP Senate in refusing to even consider Judge Garland will blow up in their faces. It is such irresponsible nihilism that directly led to the nomination of Donald Trump, and the Donald's expected loss couldn't happen to a "better" bunch of cynical lazy politicians.
Just shows how little respect the GOP has for our democracy. They are like the spoiled child who can't get their way fairly so through a 8 year tantrum that destroyed their own party. With the absence of voter fraud, they try to keep people from voting by making up accusations that voter fraud is rampant. It's not, the GOP knows it can't win in most states without cheating people out of their vote. Hopefully the GOP will continue to fade into oblivion, they are a threat to our democracy. They can't even have a hearing on a good moderate Supreme Court Justice, so after the election someone much more progressive can be appointed. Karma will continue to destroy the GOP, which has become like a cancer on our democracy.
1
So true. And all of this is sourced from the Republican Party pointing a finger at the other party "making them do the only things they can to stop the 'horrors.'" All this done, sigh and alas and with tears. If the voters of the Midwest ands South are angry let them go to the polls and get rid of these Constitutional, ill-willed legislators. Compromise takes courage. What Republicans do is the behavior of a three-year-old: tantrums and whining and finger pointing. Feh.
Republicans can not prevent the return of the Progressive Era forever. They will live to regret obstructing the middle of the road Judge Garland.
McConnell and his subservient caucus of hacks are traitors, subverting the functions of government, violating the rights of millions of citizens. That shoukd be on page one of every decent newspaper.
2
We are a nation of laws. Our legal system is the envy of the world because it is the foundation of our liberties.
The fact that the Republicans would jeopardize our crown jewel is beyond the pale. The public is very aware of the games that are being played and will in all likelihood reject those who are responsible.
The fact that the Republicans would jeopardize our crown jewel is beyond the pale. The public is very aware of the games that are being played and will in all likelihood reject those who are responsible.
3
Maybe this is a message from the Almighty telling people to stop passing the buck up the chain and work things out for themselves!
Certainly some of these so-called important cases are mainly of importance to the media, and not because of freedom of the press either. I'm talking hype, not hope.
When Congress holds up a spending bill over the issue of helping out a whole US State, with all its own finances intact, deal with lead in the drinking water of one city, you know things have gotten over-centralized.
Certainly some of these so-called important cases are mainly of importance to the media, and not because of freedom of the press either. I'm talking hype, not hope.
When Congress holds up a spending bill over the issue of helping out a whole US State, with all its own finances intact, deal with lead in the drinking water of one city, you know things have gotten over-centralized.
Allowing anyone's claims to know what God thinks about it into the negotiation of any law is prohibited to Congress. People on evangelical crusades take umbrage at this. They elect people who defy their oaths of office to over-rule the Constitution in the name of God. Their senators have corrupted the Supreme Court to avoid being held to account. Antonin Scalia was a bomb the Republicans insist on replacing with a clone.
Without freedom from religion, there is no freedom of religion.
Without freedom from religion, there is no freedom of religion.
2
It hardly needs explaining to say that this Court, with all its difficulties, is still preferable to its predecessor.
2
When the Supreme Court does not agree, the rulings of lower courts stand. Thus in the current situation those courts become more important, but they are also being crippled by Republican failure to consider Obama's appointments. There should be more attention to this.
8
The refusal of the Senate Majority Leader to hold confirmation hearings on the SCOTUS nominee will prove to be a yet another monumental blunder by McConnell.
I expect that Merrick's name will be withdrawn the day after the election, in favor of a nominee to be named by the next President. And if Democrats win both the White House and Senate Majority, there will be more than one vacancy on the aging Court, leading to a more durable majority.
Anyone who thinks they care about fair elections, the corrupting influence of money on Congress or climate change but votes third party will have to spend the rest of their life in denial that they facilitated the exact opposite.
There are 97,000 Nader voters in Florida who brought us the Iraq War and escalating chaos and death in the Middle East.
The next election will have material consequences for 6 billion humans and countless other species.
I expect that Merrick's name will be withdrawn the day after the election, in favor of a nominee to be named by the next President. And if Democrats win both the White House and Senate Majority, there will be more than one vacancy on the aging Court, leading to a more durable majority.
Anyone who thinks they care about fair elections, the corrupting influence of money on Congress or climate change but votes third party will have to spend the rest of their life in denial that they facilitated the exact opposite.
There are 97,000 Nader voters in Florida who brought us the Iraq War and escalating chaos and death in the Middle East.
The next election will have material consequences for 6 billion humans and countless other species.
170
"There are 97,000 Nader voters in Florida who brought us the Iraq War and escalating chaos and death in the Middle East."
That's a little strong. They preferred Nader to Gore and voted for him. And there were a host of other reasons why Gore lost the electoral vote. He arrogantly refused to campaign in his home state of Tennessee. He foolishly declined to to have Bill campaign for him because of the Lewinski scandal. He was weird and menacing in the debates with Bush. And of course the manipulation by Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court's heavy handed intrusion.
That's a little strong. They preferred Nader to Gore and voted for him. And there were a host of other reasons why Gore lost the electoral vote. He arrogantly refused to campaign in his home state of Tennessee. He foolishly declined to to have Bill campaign for him because of the Lewinski scandal. He was weird and menacing in the debates with Bush. And of course the manipulation by Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court's heavy handed intrusion.
9
Quit blaming Nader. All Gore had to do was win his home state, TN.
3
As a Sanders supporter, I plan to hold my nose to vote for Hillary, who came late to the progressive table and chose a VP who does not support our policies. But it is wrong to blame Sanders or his supporters for Hillary's deep unpopularity. As we see Clinton's poll numbers steadily dropping, I'm sure that most rational progressives are having buyer's remorse and recognizing that Sanders was the stronger candidate, who would have had no difficulty holding a commanding lead over Trump.
So who deserves the blame if voters go third-party and put Trump into office? The mainstream media, including the NYT, which operated conspicuously as an arm of the Clinton primary campaign and helped to neutralize a progressive powerhouse that was rolling through America and awakening young and marginalized Democratic voters. The Democratic party operatives, who with a few exceptions pulled every shenanigan they could get away with to keep Sanders out of the nomination.
Live with it. It's not our fault. And next time, think before you spit in the face of progressive electoral momentum.
So who deserves the blame if voters go third-party and put Trump into office? The mainstream media, including the NYT, which operated conspicuously as an arm of the Clinton primary campaign and helped to neutralize a progressive powerhouse that was rolling through America and awakening young and marginalized Democratic voters. The Democratic party operatives, who with a few exceptions pulled every shenanigan they could get away with to keep Sanders out of the nomination.
Live with it. It's not our fault. And next time, think before you spit in the face of progressive electoral momentum.
2
You left out the large amount of seats not being filled with the Federal Courts as well. "Justice delayed is justice denied." - William E. Gladstone
126
We are being governed by a pouty dictatorship of old men who make any claims about erratic,"hot flash" behavior of menopausal women questionable. It appears a similar, less reason based, condition is spreading throughout our Congress.
Perhaps in a rare show of insight the voting public in the states where most of the inbreeding which appears to be the cause of this, will in an equally rare show of unity, vote to allocate some funding to better understand what actually afflicts those they elect to govern.
Meanwhile "our" Supreme Court is left as the only governmental body which can bring any semblance of reason to our dysfunctional house of tyrannical lords.
There is hope, but little else.
Perhaps in a rare show of insight the voting public in the states where most of the inbreeding which appears to be the cause of this, will in an equally rare show of unity, vote to allocate some funding to better understand what actually afflicts those they elect to govern.
Meanwhile "our" Supreme Court is left as the only governmental body which can bring any semblance of reason to our dysfunctional house of tyrannical lords.
There is hope, but little else.
4
The Republicans made the right call when they decided not to have hearings on the selection of Merrick Garland as the next Supreme Court justice. They want to wait unril after the election to begin when they can carefully decide the best choice for this very important position. The person chosen will be on the bench for many years and it is imperative the best candidate fill this important role. There are too many important cases coming forward to risk the wrong decision which can adversely effect our country.
It is the Democrats that are causing the problems and not the Republicans. They have not been willing to compromise at all and they have caused the gridlock we are now seeing. They mus give a little too.
It is the Democrats that are causing the problems and not the Republicans. They have not been willing to compromise at all and they have caused the gridlock we are now seeing. They mus give a little too.
12
Some fun analogies at play here. Your statement the equivalent of saying that while your house is on fire, you want to focus on unclogging the toilet before calling the fire department. Aside from this illogic, you are suggesting that the entire governing body and resources of the United States are unable to carefully pick a Supreme Court Justice during a 7-month period. That is like saying that someone looking to buy a car needs 7 months to find the car dealership. Ridiculous.
2
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened: the Republicans announced their intentions to make his administration a failure before Obama took office.
And hearings would provide the opportunity for consideration, don't you think? What they are doing is unprecedented.
And hearings would provide the opportunity for consideration, don't you think? What they are doing is unprecedented.
3
Come again?
George Washington warned politicians about not putting party before country. If the founding fathers hadn't wanted a President to nominate someone to the Supreme Court in their last year in office they would have put it in the Constitution. We are a nation who prides itself on being a nation of law and order. Change is painful but the Republican party needs to stop preventing the Supreme Court from being effective and hold a vote on President Obama's nominee. They swore an oath of office and they need to do the job they were elected to do and stop playing politics.
245
Sadly, there is not a statesman among the GOP on Congress!
Sadly, their actions have created the atmosphere for an ignorant man to become their standard bearer!
Sadly, their actions have created the atmosphere for an ignorant man to become their standard bearer!
45
Crippled Supreme Court? The fact is, if Donald Trump wins this election we will see one of the most ultra right-wing Supreme Court and lower federal court judges in history. Trump has vowed to put judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the high court.
A Scalia justice would delight Trump's white supremacist voter base to no end. In one of Scalia's last opinions on affirmative action he stated flat-out that blacks should gravitate towards schools which don't have such high standards because blacks are too slow to learn at flagship universities such as U. of Texas.
That's just for starters when you consider the outsized Evangelical support Trump has in this election. You can forget women's reproductive rights because Roe v. Wade will be overturned according to most court watchers. Add to the flurry of voter I.D. laws that were passed in predominantly red states and you can kiss off representative government.
Who can forget the Terri Schiavo case in which the religious right cashed in their chips for supporting George "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" Bush who interrupted one of his many vacations to sign a deity-stamped Republican bill that called for Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be reinserted in disregard of her husband's wishes to allow her to die after she had been in a persistent vegetative state for over 10 years.
A religiously-infused Star Chamber Supreme Court is the last thing we need in America.
A Scalia justice would delight Trump's white supremacist voter base to no end. In one of Scalia's last opinions on affirmative action he stated flat-out that blacks should gravitate towards schools which don't have such high standards because blacks are too slow to learn at flagship universities such as U. of Texas.
That's just for starters when you consider the outsized Evangelical support Trump has in this election. You can forget women's reproductive rights because Roe v. Wade will be overturned according to most court watchers. Add to the flurry of voter I.D. laws that were passed in predominantly red states and you can kiss off representative government.
Who can forget the Terri Schiavo case in which the religious right cashed in their chips for supporting George "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" Bush who interrupted one of his many vacations to sign a deity-stamped Republican bill that called for Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be reinserted in disregard of her husband's wishes to allow her to die after she had been in a persistent vegetative state for over 10 years.
A religiously-infused Star Chamber Supreme Court is the last thing we need in America.
94
Funny how those who bleat about racial quotas in hiring seem to favor an ideological quota for Rightists justices on the Supreme Court. The 'Scalia seat' is being posited as necessary for ... what? Continued corporate Right domination of government?
By saying all this you feed right into Trump's message that "Everything is broken and I am the one to fix it. Clinton is just more of the same."
3
In arguing for why senate Reublicans should allow a vote on Obama's nominee the Times reasons that it could do good at restoring public confidence in the court at a time when there is a public perception that it is "little more than another political body, no less ruled by partisanship than the other two branches".
However the fact that the court is nothing more than a political body, where the rulings are based purely on the political views of the justices, and not on what their objective understanding of what the law should be, is obvious to all Americans. When speaking of how the court will vote on future cases it is accepted as basic fact that each justice will vote according to their political views, which are the same as the president and party that nominated and supported them.
In the lead up to the decision on gay marriage every discussion of how the court will vote, including those in this paper, assumed beyond a doubt that it will be 4-4 with Kennedy being the tie breaker.
So the fact that the justices vote based on their political views, which are the same as the party that anointed them is not disputed by either of the parties. The Times itself grants that what is at stake for the Republicans is their control of the court, meaning that the truth is that the court makes its ruling based on politics and not an objective understanding of the law.
Therefore there is no reason at all to assume that given the exact situation the Democrats would act any differently.
However the fact that the court is nothing more than a political body, where the rulings are based purely on the political views of the justices, and not on what their objective understanding of what the law should be, is obvious to all Americans. When speaking of how the court will vote on future cases it is accepted as basic fact that each justice will vote according to their political views, which are the same as the president and party that nominated and supported them.
In the lead up to the decision on gay marriage every discussion of how the court will vote, including those in this paper, assumed beyond a doubt that it will be 4-4 with Kennedy being the tie breaker.
So the fact that the justices vote based on their political views, which are the same as the party that anointed them is not disputed by either of the parties. The Times itself grants that what is at stake for the Republicans is their control of the court, meaning that the truth is that the court makes its ruling based on politics and not an objective understanding of the law.
Therefore there is no reason at all to assume that given the exact situation the Democrats would act any differently.
8
But there were many other such situations and the Tines mentions 2, Bork and Thomas. The Democrats have NEVER refused to hold hearings.
3
Except that in the past the Democrats have never done that. But don't let reality interfere with your prejudices.
2
Yes there is! Under W Bush Democrats could have refused to confirm anyone Bush nominated his last two years. The Democrats did not make destroying the Republicans their prime directive. There is no exact correlation between the behaviors of the party
1
All this time, the Times should have had a ticker running on its front page labeled "XXX Days Since Republicans in the Senate Refuse to do Their Jobs."
25
Editors: perhaps you should explain....this
There are different degrees of Republicanism: and maybe someone who
is in your Editorial Dept...might be sanguine enough to explain the different
degrees of Republican ideologies to the general reading audience.
The analogy is such as the Logic syllogism: All Dogs are NOT alike...that
is the hypothesis to be proven:
Hence....therefore...The Tea Party/Republicans are NOT..like the Libertarian/
Republicans....,,,,and other degrees of Republicanism are dissimilar ...
so hence...: All Reppublicans are Not alike....
Can we assume this is a similar logical conclusion ...
The Tea Party/Republicans have stonewalled...everything that Barack Obama
and the Democrats in Congress have tried to initiate; and tried to remediate.
The Tea Party/Republicans are so socially conservative; so tied to the
bidding of their campaign funders whose self-serving economics do not
at all mirror the Middle of the Road/Republicans....those who believe in
tax fairness...nor do the Tea Party/Republicans ...those who believe in not
only fiscal responsibility ..and balancing the national budget and reducing the
irresponsibly protracted US national debt which started under Ronald Reagan..
trickle down nonsense...and now these Republicans/who are calling themselves Libertarians are ....KEPT out of the mainstream media..and why
is that...well let me tell you...
The mainstream media has raked in millions of dollars under the infamous
tool of Citizens United.
There are different degrees of Republicanism: and maybe someone who
is in your Editorial Dept...might be sanguine enough to explain the different
degrees of Republican ideologies to the general reading audience.
The analogy is such as the Logic syllogism: All Dogs are NOT alike...that
is the hypothesis to be proven:
Hence....therefore...The Tea Party/Republicans are NOT..like the Libertarian/
Republicans....,,,,and other degrees of Republicanism are dissimilar ...
so hence...: All Reppublicans are Not alike....
Can we assume this is a similar logical conclusion ...
The Tea Party/Republicans have stonewalled...everything that Barack Obama
and the Democrats in Congress have tried to initiate; and tried to remediate.
The Tea Party/Republicans are so socially conservative; so tied to the
bidding of their campaign funders whose self-serving economics do not
at all mirror the Middle of the Road/Republicans....those who believe in
tax fairness...nor do the Tea Party/Republicans ...those who believe in not
only fiscal responsibility ..and balancing the national budget and reducing the
irresponsibly protracted US national debt which started under Ronald Reagan..
trickle down nonsense...and now these Republicans/who are calling themselves Libertarians are ....KEPT out of the mainstream media..and why
is that...well let me tell you...
The mainstream media has raked in millions of dollars under the infamous
tool of Citizens United.
3
Nearly all of the Senate republicans dare not "defy" McConnell and are supporting their despicable nominee. Tea party or not, they vote in lockstep. B**less wonders.
Thank Republicans. I expect if Hillary wins in November, Republicans will be falling all over themselves to approve a moderate like Garland, fearing Hillary would nominate a real liberal.
13
1.) All members of Congress take an oath to uphold the constitution.
2.) We are at war (war on terror, etc)
3.) Failure to carry out constitutionally required duties is treason (and a violation of the senatorial oath of office).
4.) The USA Patriot Act cancels civil liberties and rights of citizens, including pols, to the pre-2001 constitutional protections.
5.) Treason during time of war is punishable by death.
Therefore, Barry should, as one of his final acts as POTUS, order the arrest, torture and execution of all members of the US Senate who refuse to act on the Garland affair, on charges of treason during time of war. The FISA court can rubber stamp the arrest and torture warrants.
2.) We are at war (war on terror, etc)
3.) Failure to carry out constitutionally required duties is treason (and a violation of the senatorial oath of office).
4.) The USA Patriot Act cancels civil liberties and rights of citizens, including pols, to the pre-2001 constitutional protections.
5.) Treason during time of war is punishable by death.
Therefore, Barry should, as one of his final acts as POTUS, order the arrest, torture and execution of all members of the US Senate who refuse to act on the Garland affair, on charges of treason during time of war. The FISA court can rubber stamp the arrest and torture warrants.
5
Let's see, this bunch nominated Donald Trump as their standard bearer, has used "shutdowns' and "sequestering" as means of governance, has bowed before the NRA after each mass shooting and has helped the "polarization" of the country in countless other ways.
And you really think they won't stonewall a Supreme Court nominee until "hell freezes over"?
As has been said before (And I paraphrase it), "They have no shame".
And you really think they won't stonewall a Supreme Court nominee until "hell freezes over"?
As has been said before (And I paraphrase it), "They have no shame".
77
This is deliberate. As we have seen in Wisconsin, where reports confirm that republicans are refusing to comply with Federal Court orders against their voter supression efforts, the GOP has obvious plans to block democracy in the coming elections. They need to be sure that if anything reaches the Supreme Court that the stage is set for chaos, otherwise the game would be more "fair" and they don't like those odds.
47
This is not a constitutional crisis. The constitution does not mandate nine justices on the Court. This is not (yet) the longest stretch of time that the Court has been ideologically deadlocked with an even number of justices. This is not the longest stretch of time that the Court has been down one justice. Lower federal courts typically issue decisions in conflict with each other and the resulting regional disparity in laws can last year. The Court has decided a great deal of cases with an even number of justices due to vacancies and recusals. At any rate, justice deferred for some is justice preserved for others. My gosh you act like the house is on fire. The republic will survive.
3
It may not be the longest stretch, but it is not because of any extraordinary causes. It is due to the outright refusal of the Senate to act. Do you think the people affected the 4-4 splits enjoy being in limbo? Why do you think it's ok for the laws if one circuit court to be different from another circuit court? And why should justice be denied for anyone? It most certainly is a crisis when the legislative branch is holding the other two branches hostage.
Both Obamacare and the Supreme Court need legislative action. Can the Republicans act on both during the lame-duck session? Mr. Luettgen suggests that self-interest will compel self-serving action on Judge Garland. Why not on a self-serving fix for Obamacare? The faux-market kluge will land in the lap of the next Congress and the next President.
1
The very real possibility is that the Supreme Court will remain without a full roster of nine Justices for at least another four years. This is, I believe, the GOP's basic strategy. The GOP-led Senate will certainly not approve any nominee proposed by Hillary Clinton, and its at least possible that it would also block a Trump nomination out of the animosity he generated against the Republican establishment.
However, the real reason for this impasse is that in the minds of McConnell, et al, a stranglehold at SCOTUS at the very least prevents decisions that would undo many of their most egregious ideas, such as voter suppression, bathroom laws, and blockage of any and all environmental challenges. Sure, some of their cherished policy aims might be temporarily blocked by 4-4 deadlocks, but on the other hand, the so-called "liberal agenda" will be denied, postponed, or defeated due to their Constitutional malfeasance.
What's to lose, McConnell is chortling to his backbone-free colleagues. Who needs a Supreme Court after all?
However, the real reason for this impasse is that in the minds of McConnell, et al, a stranglehold at SCOTUS at the very least prevents decisions that would undo many of their most egregious ideas, such as voter suppression, bathroom laws, and blockage of any and all environmental challenges. Sure, some of their cherished policy aims might be temporarily blocked by 4-4 deadlocks, but on the other hand, the so-called "liberal agenda" will be denied, postponed, or defeated due to their Constitutional malfeasance.
What's to lose, McConnell is chortling to his backbone-free colleagues. Who needs a Supreme Court after all?
58
In reality this situation is a result of the Courts own decision. The Citizens United decision has allowed groups with large financial muscle to pressure Congress to block any Justice that could change the Courts. These groups are patient and are not only focused on this single issue of a Court appointee. It is a many pronged approach to power and shaping policy for years to come. Their plan is simple but ingenious. File a suit within a specific jurisdiction and it will Work its way to the Supreme Court. A deadlocked Court can achieve a desired outcome as well as a majority decision.
8
One of the most important reasons to vote out Republicans at the congressional level: failure to do one's constitutional duty should result in firing by the citizenry.
Such shameful behavior should be rewarded with swift removal from public service.
Such shameful behavior should be rewarded with swift removal from public service.
117
Ms. Mauldin:
"Republicans at the Congressional level" have no say in the confirmation or rejection of the president's nominee to the Supreme Court.
That role belongs exclusively to the Senate.
"Republicans at the Congressional level" have no say in the confirmation or rejection of the president's nominee to the Supreme Court.
That role belongs exclusively to the Senate.
1
And the Senate would be part of Congress and so "congressional", right?
Elizabeth is right - vote to get rid of "congressional" Republicans, no matter which house they are in.
Elizabeth is right - vote to get rid of "congressional" Republicans, no matter which house they are in.
1
Certainly, if Trump wins, it’s likely that the open U.S. Supreme Court seat will remain vacant until well into 2017. However, if Sec. Clinton wins, the lame-duck Republican U.S. Senate likely will fall all over itself confirming Judge Garland as the best they could possibly hope for from their perspective under a Clinton presidency. That is, unless she asks Garland to withdraw his name so she can nominate someone more liberal once she assumed office; but that would be a huge mistake, first because she might not be able to get THAT justice confirmed and second for the VERY poor start it would offer congressional Republicans with whom she would have to work to get ANYTHING done.
It’s true that nothing like this has ever happened before, but how many times has a justice central to maintaining an ideological majority died in office at precisely the moment when determining his replacement would become such a political football in an extremely contentious general election? There’s a first time for everything. Methinks the editors prostesteth too much: if everything were reversed, Harry Reid is certainly berserker-ideological enough to refuse to confirm a Republican nominee at this time. Welcome to America.
In any event, the stakes certainly are too high to allow that ninth Court seat to be filled much before late-November at the earliest.
I'm quite sure the republic will survive this.
It’s true that nothing like this has ever happened before, but how many times has a justice central to maintaining an ideological majority died in office at precisely the moment when determining his replacement would become such a political football in an extremely contentious general election? There’s a first time for everything. Methinks the editors prostesteth too much: if everything were reversed, Harry Reid is certainly berserker-ideological enough to refuse to confirm a Republican nominee at this time. Welcome to America.
In any event, the stakes certainly are too high to allow that ninth Court seat to be filled much before late-November at the earliest.
I'm quite sure the republic will survive this.
4
You could take your note and plug in "shut down government" "war without consent" or any other high-handed usurpation and it would read the same - oh well, the republic will survive. I am glad that the Times protesteth in favor of the democracy and Constitution.
13
Refusal to confirm is one thing. Refusal to hold hearing so the American public can make up its mind as it did in the case of Bork, is quite another.
3
The republicans are acting like spoiled 4 year olds. It's as if they are holdind the country hostage to their temper tantrums. When you are 4 you only care about yourself.
16
Don't smear 4 year olds...I have one and while true, she isn't yet always thoughtful, she DOES care about others (especially when she's not overtired or hungry)! :-)
12
Most 4 year olds act better than the Republicans.
3
I get tired of us liberals blaming the Republicans for the sorry state of our political reality. We sound like disempowered victims.
The fact is Republicans have the power, in the Senate, in the House, and in the local governorships and legislatures.
I look forward to Democrats capturing the presidency and vice presidency in November. That win, though, should be a starting point for developing and re-establishing a ground-based infrastructure for local and state control to support more liberal and more broad-based policies.
We Democrats lost our local outreach by joining forces with conservatives over the last two generations dismembering labor unions. Conservative voices are loud and constant in local churches; we no longer have something comparable.
I look forward to witnessing the Democratic Party, under Hillary Clinton, transforming the current party infrastructure into a powerhouse franchise of liberal politicians that will feed bottom-up candidates and ideas into a broad political force. HRC can be the next president of the U.S. If so, she has a generational opportunity to be transformational presiden, from SCOTUS appointments to redistricting.
The fact is Republicans have the power, in the Senate, in the House, and in the local governorships and legislatures.
I look forward to Democrats capturing the presidency and vice presidency in November. That win, though, should be a starting point for developing and re-establishing a ground-based infrastructure for local and state control to support more liberal and more broad-based policies.
We Democrats lost our local outreach by joining forces with conservatives over the last two generations dismembering labor unions. Conservative voices are loud and constant in local churches; we no longer have something comparable.
I look forward to witnessing the Democratic Party, under Hillary Clinton, transforming the current party infrastructure into a powerhouse franchise of liberal politicians that will feed bottom-up candidates and ideas into a broad political force. HRC can be the next president of the U.S. If so, she has a generational opportunity to be transformational presiden, from SCOTUS appointments to redistricting.
56
I agree, "We Democrats lost our local outreach by joining forces with conservatives."
Yet this misleads about what she is with, "Hillary Clinton, transforming the current party infrastructure into a powerhouse franchise of liberal politicians."
She is that Democratic Party faction that lost our local outreach. She is the Democratic Party's center right shift.
Yet this misleads about what she is with, "Hillary Clinton, transforming the current party infrastructure into a powerhouse franchise of liberal politicians."
She is that Democratic Party faction that lost our local outreach. She is the Democratic Party's center right shift.
1
Is this really surprising? It's one of a piece with gerrymandering and "Voter ID Laws."
A party that represents nothing can have just one goal: to remain in power a all costs.
And we will be reminded that to a large degree these people are the heirs and successors to the Confederacy. The more things change.....
A party that represents nothing can have just one goal: to remain in power a all costs.
And we will be reminded that to a large degree these people are the heirs and successors to the Confederacy. The more things change.....
74
More people need to recognize the connection of many Republicans to the Confederacy. Reading the Cornerstone Address reveals much of the present day Republican ideals and much of what drives the Trump supporters. The racism and Jim Crow tactics are obvious but the tax, tariff and infrastructure are not. The Confederate soldiers may have signed off on the Civil War but many opportunists did not. Money and raw power drive those that would hold the Constitution of the Confederacy above the Constitution of the United States.
2
Should Donald Trump become President, the greatest blame will fall on Mitch MCConnell, who made the Court an election year emergency.
You can see it in comments - people who might otherwise not vote for Trump are falling into line, and backing the GOP. The Court is the primary reason.
There are big issues facing the Court - showdowns on questions in which we decide which freedom or right takes a little more precedence: freedom of religious practice, or freedom from the results of it; freedom to breathe clean air, or freedom to practice free enterprise; freedom to be able to cast a vote, or right of the state to manage voting.
We may have foisted on us the least qualified, least dignified, most outrageous, least inhibited, most ignorant President in history. When you look at Mitch McConnell, remember his role.
You can see it in comments - people who might otherwise not vote for Trump are falling into line, and backing the GOP. The Court is the primary reason.
There are big issues facing the Court - showdowns on questions in which we decide which freedom or right takes a little more precedence: freedom of religious practice, or freedom from the results of it; freedom to breathe clean air, or freedom to practice free enterprise; freedom to be able to cast a vote, or right of the state to manage voting.
We may have foisted on us the least qualified, least dignified, most outrageous, least inhibited, most ignorant President in history. When you look at Mitch McConnell, remember his role.
56
I'm pretty much committed to a policy of never looking at Mitch McConnell.
2
"Meanwhile, the eight justices have split evenly in several major cases, which puts off any final judgment on lawsuits that affect millions of Americans. "
There is no such thing as "final judgment." The Court has overruled itself on many cases, most notably Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, among many others. A 5-4 ruling implies nothing more than a reflection of social and cultural norms for that particular time and place.
Re-affirming a lower court's decision with a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court is not automatically a bad thing.
There is no such thing as "final judgment." The Court has overruled itself on many cases, most notably Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, among many others. A 5-4 ruling implies nothing more than a reflection of social and cultural norms for that particular time and place.
Re-affirming a lower court's decision with a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court is not automatically a bad thing.
7
But the decesion only applies in the Circuit Court's jurisdiction.
4
With the Congress and Executive branches of our government effectively canceling any real action on issues like heath care, immigration, infrastructure funding, abortion rights, or voting rights, it has been courts who have forced our governing bodies to act.
Now, with the Supreme Court moved to stalemate by a vacancy, we see our entire government held hostage by intransigent forces, right and left. The American people suffer while our political leaders make political points to their constituencies and contributors. We are in deep, deep trouble, and need to move forward. We cannot.
It is obvious that our political processes have fail. It is time for a change. The only questions are: "Who will bring it, and how will they bring it?"
I think the 1% needs to begin to worry. They brought us here. Their money was speech. It carried the day in too many elections. Now what?
Now, with the Supreme Court moved to stalemate by a vacancy, we see our entire government held hostage by intransigent forces, right and left. The American people suffer while our political leaders make political points to their constituencies and contributors. We are in deep, deep trouble, and need to move forward. We cannot.
It is obvious that our political processes have fail. It is time for a change. The only questions are: "Who will bring it, and how will they bring it?"
I think the 1% needs to begin to worry. They brought us here. Their money was speech. It carried the day in too many elections. Now what?
3
The remaining members of the Supreme Court do themselves, and the memory of Atonin Scalia, no justice by taking this lying down. The judiciary is an equal branch of government and should not allow itself to be hobbled by a dysfunctional separate branch of that government. They should allow the Executive branch to sue the Legislative branch for dereliction of duty. Checks and balances cannot exist if one branch of the government cries checkmate and leaves the game unfinished.
21
If the Republicans voted to confirm Gardener, they would lose every one of the cases listed here. If the Democrats had been in the same position they would lose all these cases as well as Roe v. Wade. Just wondering whether the Democrats would cooperate in gutting all these cases and the right to abortion, too. I don't even have to ask. The Democrats would have to do the same thing. Keep that in mind.
2
Democrats confirmed numerous conservative leaning jurists which allowed for a conservative bent to the court for decades. But the truth is, one never knows how a judge will vote once he or she is on the Court. Garland is a moderate and respected by all. Confirm or don't, but the constitutional process should be upheld and hearings should be scheduled.
40
Wrong. Check out Garland's background. He's a card-carrying Democrat. If approved, he surely would not vote Republican. Otherwise, the Republicans would have backed off and confirmed him. If the Republicans follow the rules, they commit legal suicide. Naturally, Democrats think that's a good idea. Naturally, the Republicans disagree.
1
Garland may be a registered Democrat, but that doesn't change that he's is considered a moderate as a judge. For example, he has tended to side with the government on criminal cases. Even Sen. Hatch once stated that Garland was a "consensus nominee" while a SCOTUSBlog piece referred to him as the "model, neutral judge".
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-ga...
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-ga...
3
If a group with a more Middle Eastern name was doing to the USA what the Republican Party has been doing, it would be considered a terrorist group. Yet, we as a people just think this is normal politics. Shame on us for allowing this and keeping them in power.
136
Did you like the Supreme Court better when Scalia was alive and the Supreme Court was not "short handed"?
5
This editorial begins by tying the toxic taste of American politics to the Supreme Court's docket choice, but inconsistently ends by asking for an end to politically "conservative control of the court" for many decades (empirically dubious, see NFIB v. Sebelius, but another instance of attempted politicization of the judiciary). Adam Liptak, also in the Times but a real guy instead of these ed-board spinners, offers a more measured view, noting the court's apparent attempts to minimize the political dimensions of its docket under the circumstances of trying to conserve its legitimacy in the massive media wake following the lead of ed-board hacks like these semi-anonymous beauties on the bowsprit. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-faces-volati... The ed board's take on the Supreme Court is one prime example of the politicization of law. Let me give the board a quick legal education. Politics may produce law, but law is not politics.
2
Bull, how then did supposed learned legal minds create legal torture? How did we end up with George Jr. as president? This isn't mathematics, yet you speak as if "law" and "truth" are the same. As if words somehow take on sincere intent.
The Kochs and the fake "conservative" think tanks have politicized law for several decades.
The words of Law, require brave sincere and willing people to ensure that those very laws do not violate our God given human rights. The righties have never accepted their part of this responsibility.
fwa
The Kochs and the fake "conservative" think tanks have politicized law for several decades.
The words of Law, require brave sincere and willing people to ensure that those very laws do not violate our God given human rights. The righties have never accepted their part of this responsibility.
fwa
14
FWA, thank you for the correction. The politicization of law is just as apparent on the right as on the left. I should have said that. Incidentally, I'm glad you view human rights are not granted by government. We seem to read the first three words of the Constitution the same. "We, the People . . . ." That is, people first, government in service to the people, subsidiary.
2
"struggled to overcome the growing public perception that it is little more than another political body."
"Perception" is the wrong word. It implies that maybe Bush's hijacking wasn't political. Tell that to the thousands sent to early graves for NO REASON in Iraq.
"Perception" is the wrong word. It implies that maybe Bush's hijacking wasn't political. Tell that to the thousands sent to early graves for NO REASON in Iraq.
26
Let alone the approval, the Senate Republicans are not even prepared to at least have hearings and debate about the Obama nominated name of Merrick Garland for the vacant post of the Supreme Court judge. Such a stubbornly negative Republican behaviour that has virtually caused a long spell of legislative and administrative deadlock for full eight years of Obama presidency with serious policy implications for the nation if infects the highest judiciary too with its toxic partisanship and cripples its functioning, it would really be catastrophic for the constitutional governance and the society at large. For, under the US constitutional scheme, the Supreme court is not just the third branch of the government but the custodian of the constitution itself, as also the guarantor of fundamental rights of citizens.
19
Apparently even the Supreme Court is "Fair Game", to use a phrase made famous by hyperpartisan republican strategist, Karl Rove, to justify the 'outing' of the identity of a CIA agent as an act of political vengeance. Republicans have been showing who they really are for many years now.
99
The Supreme Court became "fair game" when the Democrats decided to "bork" justice Robert Bork.
An ideal Supreme Court (in my view) would be 3-3-3, three liberals, three conservatives, and three who actually read the constitution.
But given the hyper partisanship these days, the only kinds we CAN have are a court with a conservative majority or a court with a liberal majority.
It cannot really work where different parts of the nation have such different values, and the Supreme Court, instead of confining itself to political issues, has gone more and more into social issues.
But right now, it looks like Trump is too immature to be elected - I am not sure he even WANTS to be president. So Hillary will become president and we will sure have a Supreme Court with five liberals as soon as she replaces Scalia with someone much to the left (socially).
America has become a country which is right wing in economics, and left wing in social issues. Will this work?
Let us see.
An ideal Supreme Court (in my view) would be 3-3-3, three liberals, three conservatives, and three who actually read the constitution.
But given the hyper partisanship these days, the only kinds we CAN have are a court with a conservative majority or a court with a liberal majority.
It cannot really work where different parts of the nation have such different values, and the Supreme Court, instead of confining itself to political issues, has gone more and more into social issues.
But right now, it looks like Trump is too immature to be elected - I am not sure he even WANTS to be president. So Hillary will become president and we will sure have a Supreme Court with five liberals as soon as she replaces Scalia with someone much to the left (socially).
America has become a country which is right wing in economics, and left wing in social issues. Will this work?
Let us see.
3
You make some excellent points about the Court and partisanship in general. I would say, though, that Bork being voted down as a Justice is hardly equivalent to the political games McConnell and company are currently playing. Bork had the intellect for the Court, but his well-examined judicial record demonstrated a marked lack of empathy for citizens. McConnell's antics are pure partisanship, which he made clear long ago with his "one term" vow. The Dems did approve a Justice and the vacancy was filled. Nominee Merrick Garland is one of the centrists you call for.
22
Robdert Bork got hearings and when the American people saw what kind of "justice" he favored, public opinion denied him the seat.
5
The fault is not with SCOTUS or The President. The fault is the unreasoned intransigence of congress. A nomination has been made to fill the vacancy. It is the congress that has failed America and Americans.
154
No, it is not "congress". It is the Republicans in congress, and more specifically, in the Senate.
3
Sen. Mitch McConnell refused to honor his constitutional obligation to hold hearings on President Obama's supreme court nominee.
Henceforth, it is appropriate to include the terms anarchist and nihilist in reference to Mr. McConnell.
Henceforth, it is appropriate to include the terms anarchist and nihilist in reference to Mr. McConnell.
228
You've omitted the term sedition, Alan, but otherwise, I agree with you. McConnell is a GOTPower-uber alles water carrier, and he should be removed from office for gross dereliction of duty.
2
He's also a racist. Put that in.
1
It makes me angry when I think of how the Republican congress has hijacked our political system for eight years.
When you look at 2016 alone, these self-centered office holders have basically phoned their responsibilities in. It's not just their decision to avoid a Supreme Court justice set of hearings it's also the fact that they have placed millions of Americans at risk (Zika, Flint).
I'm ready for leaders who will put Country before Party.
When you look at 2016 alone, these self-centered office holders have basically phoned their responsibilities in. It's not just their decision to avoid a Supreme Court justice set of hearings it's also the fact that they have placed millions of Americans at risk (Zika, Flint).
I'm ready for leaders who will put Country before Party.
195
I agree, Kris, but the money masters behind republican politicians started hijacking OUR political system over 40 years ago when they installed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as their mouthpieces in the White House. That was right after John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were brutally assassinated.
1
This impasse underscores a feature of our constitutional system that we sometimes overlook. However clear and specific the rules laid down in the document, their effective implementation depends on the integrity of both elected officials and their constituents. No form of government for a free society can function properly unless the people and their representatives obey the law even in cases where doing so contradicts their own narrow interests.
Senate Republicans may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, but they have certainly ignored its spirit, as demonstrated by the inability of the Court to settle closely divided cases that demand its attention. The unprecedented length of the stalemate also strengthens the argument that McConnell and company have assigned a higher priority to partisanship than to effective government. This same anarchic spirit shaped their decision to reject any legislative proposal that originated in the Obama White House.
The refusal to compromise or to elevate the welfare of the country above the narrow interests of party, while hardly unique shortcomings of the GOP, have achieved the status of doctrines in the minds of its current leadership. This contempt for the requirements of a democratic society makes them kindred spirits with their nominee, Donald Trump.
Senate Republicans may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, but they have certainly ignored its spirit, as demonstrated by the inability of the Court to settle closely divided cases that demand its attention. The unprecedented length of the stalemate also strengthens the argument that McConnell and company have assigned a higher priority to partisanship than to effective government. This same anarchic spirit shaped their decision to reject any legislative proposal that originated in the Obama White House.
The refusal to compromise or to elevate the welfare of the country above the narrow interests of party, while hardly unique shortcomings of the GOP, have achieved the status of doctrines in the minds of its current leadership. This contempt for the requirements of a democratic society makes them kindred spirits with their nominee, Donald Trump.
38
I'm torn. On one hand, I'm angry that republicans have blocked Obama's efforts to appoint Garland or anyone to the Court and fulfill his job as our President. On the other hand, I'm thrilled that Scalia's death has forced a more balanced court, and elated that Justice Roberts and his pals are seething about it. And I'm absolutely ecstatic to think that Hillary will get 1 or 2 appointments come November. That is cause for dancing in the streets.
118
To Tom J.
Sorry to rain on your parade........
If the Senate remains in the hands of the GOP with Mitch McConnell as the majority leader, then President Hillary C. will NOT get 1 or 2 Supreme Court appointments.
McConnell will block her efforts just as he has blocked Pres. Obama's appointments.
It is of great importance that the Democrats are successful in taking back the Senate.
Support all Democrats currently up for election to the Senate and pay attention to voting for this necessary result.
Sorry to rain on your parade........
If the Senate remains in the hands of the GOP with Mitch McConnell as the majority leader, then President Hillary C. will NOT get 1 or 2 Supreme Court appointments.
McConnell will block her efforts just as he has blocked Pres. Obama's appointments.
It is of great importance that the Democrats are successful in taking back the Senate.
Support all Democrats currently up for election to the Senate and pay attention to voting for this necessary result.
13
I'm torn too. A powerful motivation to vote for HRC is to see the right-wingers seething. The trouble is, armed seething Trump supporters is truly a scary thought if they lose. It is a movement that keeps trying to discredit and de-legitemize all three branches of government when it does not coincide precisely with their agenda.
1
Don't count your chickens yet. You are assuming more about Hillary's likely appointments than is justified by her past political behavior.
She puts herself as center right when she does not know she is being recorded talking to donors. We can expect center right nominees, good perhaps on abortion, but for everything else very corporate, power elite sorts.
Better get ready to protest.
She puts herself as center right when she does not know she is being recorded talking to donors. We can expect center right nominees, good perhaps on abortion, but for everything else very corporate, power elite sorts.
Better get ready to protest.
3
America will be a better place without Scalia on the court. It may be temporarily less efficient, but I'll take this any day over the the chronic right wing mischief we have had to endure.
17
It is the egregious and seditious partisanship of the Grand Old Pirates that has brought us to this pass on SCOTUS and all the other stonewalling of the appointment of judges at the appellant and district levels. All in a vain bet that somehow the Grand Old Pirates can maintain the Federal Judiciary as an arm of their party.
I would urge all voters to punish the Republicans at all levels for this reason alone. Their arrogance and lust for power over all the rest of us has exposed their sedition and contempt for the constitution.
We need a SCOTUS & Federal Judiciary that follows the constitution, law, and the evidence. Not a bunch of political hacks in black robes.
Vote to give the Grand Old Pirates the heave ho in November.
I would urge all voters to punish the Republicans at all levels for this reason alone. Their arrogance and lust for power over all the rest of us has exposed their sedition and contempt for the constitution.
We need a SCOTUS & Federal Judiciary that follows the constitution, law, and the evidence. Not a bunch of political hacks in black robes.
Vote to give the Grand Old Pirates the heave ho in November.
85
Republicans in the Senate have the right--no pun here--man in charge of what is obviously an attempt to submerge our constitutional government in a tiny bathtub of partisan politics.
Mitch McConnell saw, early on, that an adamantine objection to any initiative that came from President Barack Obama's desk would serve narrow political ends. McConnell tried to ruin his presidency; he has now put in his sights the final arbiters of justice and law, the Supreme Court.
Senator McConnell and his fellow conspirators lack the wisdom, grace and intelligence to understand that a full complement of nine justices is more than urgently needed to settle the long-standing disputes that begin in small towns and wend their wrought and fractious way through an appellate system where, if they're fortunate, plaintiffs and defendants will be granted a hearing, one that will settle competing issues along the lines of law, not of politics.
When we elect presidents we also determine, in large part, how the country will be governed--either by clear principles of law--or by the stealthy, or wide-open application of partisanship which has, as its only reason for being, the political and legal subjugation of certain classes of citizens, particularly the powerless. More recently, the evil and crafty advocates of seek to undermine a society by forcing upon it obvious discriminatory practices, a nod to certain distinction of persons.
It is this last that serves to unmask us as a nation of charlatans.
Mitch McConnell saw, early on, that an adamantine objection to any initiative that came from President Barack Obama's desk would serve narrow political ends. McConnell tried to ruin his presidency; he has now put in his sights the final arbiters of justice and law, the Supreme Court.
Senator McConnell and his fellow conspirators lack the wisdom, grace and intelligence to understand that a full complement of nine justices is more than urgently needed to settle the long-standing disputes that begin in small towns and wend their wrought and fractious way through an appellate system where, if they're fortunate, plaintiffs and defendants will be granted a hearing, one that will settle competing issues along the lines of law, not of politics.
When we elect presidents we also determine, in large part, how the country will be governed--either by clear principles of law--or by the stealthy, or wide-open application of partisanship which has, as its only reason for being, the political and legal subjugation of certain classes of citizens, particularly the powerless. More recently, the evil and crafty advocates of seek to undermine a society by forcing upon it obvious discriminatory practices, a nod to certain distinction of persons.
It is this last that serves to unmask us as a nation of charlatans.
24
The Republicans are leading an all out assault against our system of government. This isn't just politics. It's an attack upon democracy.
When you hand someone the keys to your house and they agree to take care of it while you are away, you have to depend on them to not burn it down. You trust them, put them in charge and expect them to be responsible with your property. They Republicans have the keys and they are being irresponsible. In fact they are burning down the house we all live in.
Being in charge of a house of Congress is much more than just being a player in a much larger operation. Being a Senator allows you to write the rules that govern how the operation functions. This is immense power.
When the framers of the Constitution wrote that the Senate had the right to advise and consent federal appointments, I'm certain that they never entertained the thought that Senators would would abuse that right to obstruct and defeat our system of checks and balances. The framers gave the Senators the keys but didn't tell them it was was wrong to burn the house down. They assumed that people in possession of such power would never had gotten there unless they were responsible enough to be handed the keys.
Big mistake.
When you hand someone the keys to your house and they agree to take care of it while you are away, you have to depend on them to not burn it down. You trust them, put them in charge and expect them to be responsible with your property. They Republicans have the keys and they are being irresponsible. In fact they are burning down the house we all live in.
Being in charge of a house of Congress is much more than just being a player in a much larger operation. Being a Senator allows you to write the rules that govern how the operation functions. This is immense power.
When the framers of the Constitution wrote that the Senate had the right to advise and consent federal appointments, I'm certain that they never entertained the thought that Senators would would abuse that right to obstruct and defeat our system of checks and balances. The framers gave the Senators the keys but didn't tell them it was was wrong to burn the house down. They assumed that people in possession of such power would never had gotten there unless they were responsible enough to be handed the keys.
Big mistake.
219
You point out one of the major flaws of the Constitution. It doesn't assert enough power over the actions of the politicians. It doesn't control their spending and allows them to stay in office forever. It appears to have been written in a more naive and trusting bygone era.
1
Chief Justice Roberts will be be in a quandary when President Clinton chooses a liberal, or semi-liberal, as her first appointment to the court. Of what value will be his perks of office when he is always on the losing side and can no longer manipulate the written decision by picking the author? Will his veneration of the court be enough to hold him on the court? I suspect not. Look for him to resign after her first or second picks for the court.
5
It is a strange Constitution that would mandate one party to approve the appointment of a Supreme Court nominee from the other party in order to create a Court that consistently ruled against them. In fact, the Democrats apparently acknowledge that there is no such mandate. If there were, they should have long since sued the Republicans. At any rate, while Supreme Court scholars may know otherwise, I am unaware of any single appointment where one party was expected to yield on all the important legal issues referenced in this editorial. It simply defies common sense. Whether or not there is a mandate, this is a classic example of bad government.. If the Democrats had to gut Roe v. Wade, voter id laws, and dozens of other hard-won precedents, I doubt they would do that. That's the position the Republicans are in.. The pending Supreme Court appointment requires monumental concessions against self-interest. In my opinion, the rules of this game make no sense whatsoever. We need to change the rules.
4
No, the rules are good, we need to actual follow the rules, and the obligations that go with them.
That means compromising.
Try it.
fwa
That means compromising.
Try it.
fwa
12
The Constitution does not mandate approval, just a hearing and a vote. The Republicans easily could have given Garland his day, and then gone on record with an up or down vote instead of hiding behind some false principle that they invented in order to shirk their responsibility.
7
Look at history. Even when the opposite party controlled the Senate, a President's choice was usually confirmed. Only in egregious case like Robert Bork when public opinion turned totally against him, was confirmation denied.
5
The Senate ought to have respected the office of President, and voted on the nomination sent to it.
However, this episode of 8 justices is turning out to be a good thing.
The Court has adopted a policy of working together in ways it has not for many years. The Court is determined, so say several justices in interviews, not to tie at 4-4.
Thus, the Court IS capable of doing its work. It is doing that work better than it did when it indulged in party-line 5-4 confrontations. Now that is needs at least 5-3, it is rediscovering the proper behavior for justices.
The Court needed this kick in the pants. That is not why the Senate did this, it was merely behaving badly, as badly as the Court has been for some years now.
Perhaps we should make them work with 8 for awhile, until they learn how to behave. Then they can have one more to spread the work.
However, this episode of 8 justices is turning out to be a good thing.
The Court has adopted a policy of working together in ways it has not for many years. The Court is determined, so say several justices in interviews, not to tie at 4-4.
Thus, the Court IS capable of doing its work. It is doing that work better than it did when it indulged in party-line 5-4 confrontations. Now that is needs at least 5-3, it is rediscovering the proper behavior for justices.
The Court needed this kick in the pants. That is not why the Senate did this, it was merely behaving badly, as badly as the Court has been for some years now.
Perhaps we should make them work with 8 for awhile, until they learn how to behave. Then they can have one more to spread the work.
14
We should make them work with 8 for awhile? They, like the House, Senate and President, work for our nation not for their own ends which it appears has become the accepted norm.
The President will soon be retired and the many court jesters who contort, juggle and flaunt the norms of decency and the law should be tossed out the door next month.
The President will soon be retired and the many court jesters who contort, juggle and flaunt the norms of decency and the law should be tossed out the door next month.
7
the republican't party is well on its way to accomplishing
exactly what it set-out to-do some 55 or so years ago - - -
that is,
the complete operating-shutdown of the Federal government.
(( save for the military-industrial-complex to protect
their multinational corporate interests abroad ))
they are committed to a strict non-governing philosophy,
and as such they should step-aside and allow those who
recognize the value to civilization of good-governance to perform.
they have already nearly-frozen the legislative process,
they have practiced a stone-walling of the executive branch - - -
which, among other non-actions, have failed to fill 'empty-seats'
throughout - - -
and,
since February,
they have crippled the Judiciary branch.
one might construe from these deliberate and repeated efforts
that the republican't party hates America and Americans.
it may also be time to begin to describe this behavior as
approaching the seperatist-activities that immediately preceded the Civil War.
particularly as they have repeated the assertion that
"we" are presently involved in a 'cultural-war' for the ages.
would that we could rapidly deploy a truth-commission to ferret out these destructive and subversive practices.
there may still be time ...
the citizens are clamoring at the gates ...
a few more and the barricades may fall.