Supreme court rules against catholic non-profit for discrimination. - Polidicks

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/politics/supreme-court-catholic-foster-care/index.html This is great, but: Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas noted they would have granted the request.

If/when Trump is impeached, indicted, and prosecuted, Gorsuch needs to be removed from the court, and all of his judicial nominations on lower courts must be reevaluated and/or reconfirmed. Kvanaugh must be blocked outright. This is the most nakedly corrupt administration in US History, and it's self-serving nominations, born of treason, raised for obstruction, should not be allowed to persist.

If Dems ever get the 60 majority, it might happen. Impeaching a justice would permanently alter the court and the judicial branch, not something to be taken lightly. What should be done is a constitutional amendment making it so that a simple majority can't be used for federal court picks, needs to be 60.

I don't know about "the most corrupt in history" but it's definitely up there. Remember government officials in the 1800s were openly having people killed and assigning actual family members to subordinate positions.

Gorsuch truly is nothing compared to how Trump has staffed all of the lower courts. By the end of his term the ninth circuit court won’t be liberal anymore. Thats devestating for the rights of citizens

There needs to be a constitutional amendment regarding the way courts are staffed in general. We can't keep pinballing around like this anymore. The SCOTUS, the lower courts, they can't be seen as an arm of any political party but that's precicely what has been happening increasingly.

That's why they put up with Trump.

Yeah, I guess I should amend that by saying the most nakedly corrupt in modern* history.

I said the other day I'd like to see the appointments Trump is making revoked when he is inevitably removed from power on the grounds they were appointments made by someone who never should have been able to make them. That and because of such a reason his VP, being someone he picked, should be disqualified from the line of presidential succession as well. Basically if Trump touched, get rid of it.

Unfortunately, the US government doesn't work that way.

Yeah, it barely works at all

If that were true, we wouldn't be worrying about Trump doing anything.

That's why we're worried. All the protections that should have stopped him didn't work.

If a police offer is found of misconduct, it can result in convictions the officer's made in the past to be overturned. Planting evidence, taking bribes, etc. can lead to an entire officer's career to be put under a microscope. If found guilty of conspiracy, I think it should only be fair his appointments and policy implementations should be given the same review, and should be able to be removed on the same grounds an officer found of misconduct would face. They're civil servants, and at the end of the day these positions are meant to serve everyone's best interest. Not your own. If hr can't be trusted? I damn well think everything he's done up until this point should be put under a microscope as well.

Didn't that one happen recently too (at least de-facto)? I remember hearing something about White House staff positions being filled like that.

Exactly. The president serves the nation, and his appointments are to reflect the national interest. If he is found to have seized power through treason, and operated a corrupt, self-serving regime, then it stands to reason that his nominations were made with corrupt, self-serving intentions at heart. For example: a president who is under multiple federal investigations into severe criminal conduct nominating a Supreme Court Justice who just so happens to believe that criminal investigations into the presidency are unconstitutional, and that the President should have the right to unilaterally terminate any such investigation at will. His Supreme Court nominations should, the moment he is impeached and indicted, be immediately forfeit, with his replacement to name new nominees who would then go through the standard confirmation process. His lower court judges should all be subject to review. Not sure if you're being coy, but Trump's children are White House officials in all but name. He "divested" himself from his businesses by putting them in a "blind trust" with his children, and then gave them White House jobs and security clearances.

"I just want to interject to remind everyone that I'm grossly unqualified for this position." -Gorsuch.

He's not unqualified, he's an originalist, which started in the 80s with Reagan appointed justices like Scalia and Thomas.

theres no limit to the number of supreme court justices, the following congress can just up the limit to like 11 and add non insane judges to balance out the terrible ones if they fail an impeachment on the terrible justices

And the congress after that can set it even higher and put in more Scalia clones. FDR tried something like that, it failed but it got the SCOTUS to play nicer with his New Deal legislation.

thats why you run a campaign to convince states to impose a cap on supreme court justices via amendment

this was how it was before McConnell broke it, no?

That was McConnell breaking the filibuster for Supreme Court picks, after the Dem Senate leader before Schumer, Harry Reid did the same for federal court picks, so Dems could no longer block the vote on Gorsuch. The Constitution only requires a simple majority for all judiciary and executive nominees afaik. But there's been a pretty big change in the numbers on votes over the past decade or so, before 2005 justices were often confirmed with votes of 80 or more, over 90 senators voted to confirm the current most conservative and most liberal ones, Scalia and Ginsburg, but after Bush's picks they've been confirmed more on party lines, Obama's were by around 66 and Gorsuch 52-48.

That's a horrible idea, though, because it sets a precedent that every new administration can just check in a few extra SC Justices at will. That 11 becomes 13 with the next administration, 15 with the one after, and so on. The SC is not mandated to be only nine justices, but either party attempting to change that now would ultimately trigger a constitutional crisis.

I just plain lost track of the details because of the sheer amount of horribleness

So be it. Conservatives have started this arms race, this politicization of the courts. They're only going to cement their grip unless they're stopped. Being "the bigger man" here can only lead to defeat and the death of democracy. If it means appointing five hundred supreme court nominees, so be it. So be it.

Cease this foolishness. We don't fix the system by breaking it more. At a certain point, you're just being silly.

This is how you save the Court even with Brett "I praised William Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade" Kavanaugh there. Dem president in 2020, serves two terms Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer pass and get suitable replacements Then all the justices on the court will be relatively young, with a 5/4 liberal majority. Justices have also been serving longer since the 70s, from an average of 15 years to 26.