Tim Kaine hopes a Dem majority Senate will change rules for Supreme Court appointments - Polidicks

[quote]Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is predicting that Senate Democrats will "change the Senate rules" to confirm a ninth Supreme Court justice if Republicans continue to block confirmation of any new appointments. "I am a US senator. I have a prediction -- this is not a guarantee -- and I'm not revealing inside intel," said Kaine, who represents Virginia. [B]"I was in the Senate when the Republicans' stonewalling around appointments caused the Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice."[/B] [B] "If these guys think they're going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, 'We're not going to let you thwart the law.'[/B] And so we will change the Senate rules to uphold the law that the court will be nine members."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/tim-kaine-supreme-court-senate-rules/index.html[/url] Thank god, it's ridiculous we're going this long without 9 members in the court.

Without a Bernie-like push for voting excitement, the Democratic party doesn't have a chance at getting a majority in these lesser elections.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51279266][url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/tim-kaine-supreme-court-senate-rules/index.html[/url] Thank god, it's ridiculous we're going this long without 9 members in the court.[/QUOTE] It's terrifying to realize that our country has been a tricycle on two wheels for as long as it has, especially when you consider the perilous road we have been flying down ever since (and before) Justice Scalia's death. The Supreme Court is an essential part of the check-and-balance system that has been effectively crippled, and which has been purposefully left as such by the Republican party, in an absolute refusal to comprehend the consequences of doing so similar to how they voted for other countries to be able to sue the US for its counter-terror operations.

[QUOTE]tricycle on three wheels[/QUOTE] ????

[QUOTE=cdr248;51279305]????[/QUOTE] Good catch - I was being talked to while typing and I stopped and resumed, glitching slightly in the process.

[QUOTE=bitches;51279292]Without a Bernie-like push for voting excitement, the Democratic party doesn't have a chance at getting a majority in these lesser elections.[/QUOTE] Bernie is trying to do this behind the scenes right now. But it just doesn't have the same energy and I personally can't get enthused about it.

Honestly, I'd prefer if they'd put in an independent into the Supreme Court seat, because fighting and bickering over party affiliation is depressing as fuck.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51279363]Honestly, I'd prefer if they'd put in an independent into the Supreme Court seat, because fighting and bickering over party affiliation is depressing as fuck.[/QUOTE] This isn't "bickering over party affiliation", except on the Republican side. This is denying what should be the new member of the SC because you don't want anyone but your own party to control those nominations. Only one party is at fault here.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51279363]Honestly, I'd prefer if they'd put in an independent into the Supreme Court seat, because fighting and bickering over party affiliation is depressing as fuck.[/QUOTE] unless they are fully vetted by the federalist society and given their right wing stamp of approval they are considered leftist by the parties regardless of their history. Kennedy has been what you could call an independent because he's swung both ways but the right still tallies him as a leftist

[QUOTE=bitches;51279438]This isn't "bickering over party affiliation", except on the Republican side. This is denying what should be the new member of the SC because you don't want anyone but your own party to control those nominations. Only one party is at fault here.[/QUOTE] There's no "should be." The president appoints, but the Congress approves. I do agree they should just vote him down if that's what they want.

[QUOTE=bitches;51279438]This isn't "bickering over party affiliation", except on the Republican side. This is denying what should be the new member of the SC because you don't want anyone but your own party to control those nominations. Only one party is at fault here.[/QUOTE] Hell, especially because Obama essentially offered them an olive branch by nominating a very moderate judge. But he won't kill Obamacare so he's obviously not good enough [sp]ignoring the fact that john roberts who wrote the judgment on obamacare is generally conservative, and despite that, actually made obamacare much more powerful than it was before[/sp]

[QUOTE=sgman91;51279506]There's no "should be." The president appoints, but the Congress approves. I do agree they should just vote him down if that's what they want.[/QUOTE] They would have voted against any left-leaning appointee strictly to support their agenda of the past 8 years in holding the government hostage so they can convince their backwoods idiot voters that "democrats don't get anything done".

I'm looking forward to their "Let's have the next president pick it" plan backfire when Clinton refuses to give them a moderate to pick from like Obama.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51279626]I'm looking forward to their "Let's have the next president pick it" plan backfire when Clinton refuses to give them a moderate to pick from like Obama.[/QUOTE] she already promised during one of the debates to uphold obama's pick

[QUOTE=bitches;51279632]she already promised during one of the debates to uphold obama's pick[/QUOTE] Things can change, though. If Congress swings to the Democrats, may not need to be so compromising to the GOP. Or the pick could decide against it. Or she can pick Obama himself :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51279647]Or she can pick Obama himself :v:[/QUOTE] that would be a riot literally and figuratively

[QUOTE=bitches;51279648]that would be a riot literally and figuratively[/QUOTE] That's actually a thing that a lot of far right conservatives believe she's going to do.

I think the real question is why America decided to have a blatantly politicised judiciary in the first place

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51279708]I think the real question is why America decided to have a blatantly politicised judiciary in the first place[/QUOTE] Isn't it part of the separation of power, so that none of the three (the President, the Houses, and the Supreme Court) have all the power? Though I would agree a more independent and less politicised Supreme Court works better - at-least, it works every well over here.

The right has been a cancer on our democracy since the Tea Party rose into power in 2010. Facts don't matter and compromising doesn't matter, as long as government is dysfunctional so that it fits their narrative and world view.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51279732]Isn't it part of the separation of power, so that none of the three (the President, the Houses, and the Supreme Court) have all the power? Though I would agree a more independent and less politicised Supreme Court works better - at-least, it works every well over here.[/QUOTE] Precedent and conventions are the best protectors of liberty and routes to good government, not awkward separations of power which lead to gridlock in times of crisis. Britain, prior to subverting our own constitutional conventions by holding a referendum, was the most stable country in the world bar none for two hundred years (and one of the most stable if you reduce it to the last 60 years), and one of the freest, despite having effectively no formal system of rights (especially prior to the HRA). The Supreme Court in the US is a mess. Major political questions are answered by a wholly unelected and partisan body, judging along strange lines using a several hundred year old document. Elected government can be undermined by both passing unwanted legislation (Roe v. Wade at the time), and the biggest reforms can be blocked for arbitrary reasons (as almost happened in Obergefell v. Hodges). A non-partisan Supreme Court seems only sensible to me, but because it has become so politically powerful it has become inevitably partisan as ideologues scramble for power.

[QUOTE=bitches;51279632]she already promised during one of the debates to uphold obama's pick[/QUOTE] Not be too morbid, but some of those SC justices are getting pretty on in years. Hillary may well have at least one other vacancy during her time in office, especially if she somehow manages to snag a second term. While she may uphold Obama's nominee, her next pick could be solid blue.

I think publicity is the key. If you have a good nominee, make their record loud and clear to the public. Then name every single person who is against the appointment, and force those people to justify it to the public. Stress the fact that this is HARMING the country. Last but not least, call on the public to vote out anyone who stands in the way of a qualified nominee being appointed. Keep reminding the public that it's in their power to vote in people who will get things done.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51279708]I think the real question is why America decided to have a blatantly politicised judiciary in the first place[/QUOTE] To prevent the president or congress from passing any unconstitutional laws. If Trump was in the white house and the GOP controlled congress, imagine if they passed a bill to repeal the Civil Rights Act - the Supreme Court has to step in to stop it and they have the power to do so. Imagine if Trump tried to pass a law that restricted freedom of speech or suppress the free press, the Supreme Court has the power to stop that. It's not really politicized, by that logic every court and judge in the world is politicized because of how they could interpret laws differently.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51280143]Not be too morbid, but some of those SC justices are getting pretty on in years. Hillary may well have at least one other vacancy during her time in office, especially if she somehow manages to snag a second term. While she may uphold Obama's nominee, her next pick could be solid blue.[/QUOTE] I have heard that there's a very likely chance 4 justices will leave office in some manner within the next decade, meaning the next president, especially a two term one, will make a monumental effect on the Supreme Court

The next decade is gonna be really interesting for the republican party, because where do you go from trump? The party has a whole can't pivot to the left because the electorate (at least the ones that go and vote at primaries) are either supportive of white nationalism or indifferent to anyone's needs that aren't their own. Going any further right than they already have is impossible and will let the democratic party sweep the floor even harder next election. I imagine the people voting now will have to die out in a decade or so for the republican to gain any chance at winning the presidency.