The Senate has for too long pretended to be a place for “gentlemen” ( forgetting that they have women among them. Democrats need to come up with a plan designed to “fix” any Republican opposition. the 50 plus one rule is a way forward. It will cut both ways but it is better than pissing around.
4 Likes
OK. Nevada, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Illinois - Get out and vote in Democratic Senators. It is imperative to take the Senate, and in January nuke the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. With what the Republicans are plotting openly, this should not even be a question for debate within the party. Just do it - you know the Republicans would.
24 Likes
I guess the Senate could operate with only 99 Senators as well.
17 Likes
This is what Putin wants. You now see that the Republican Party has sold their soul to Putin lock stock and barrel. They are committed to destroying the United States the same way Lenin was committed to destroying Czarist Russia.
12 Likes
GOP: We have only one job to do: Obstruct Everything.
6 Likes
FIRST we need to elect Hillary. Then we can worry about this.
THEN, this isn’t going to happen. Oh, what remains of the GOP may be able to keep Clinton from appointing a justice for the remainder of the 2016-17 term, but the public won’t let it go on forever. The public does not like gridlock. The public knows that leaving a vacancy on the court for politics or personal pique is bad government. Therefore, it is also bad politics.
6 Likes
Reducing the number of Justices will not reduce the power of the Supreme Court - merely concentrate it.
18 Likes
It has always been about the SCOTUS for me. Every issue has the potential to wind up before the Court. Who sits on the Court matters.
7 Likes
Democrats can organize for general elections but not midterms. It is time we all asked why the hell not. God save America from the Republican party. If he won’t we must.
4 Likes
All I know is, if I were a liberal leaning SCOTUS Justice, I’d be very nervous. of a RWNJ trying to “re-balance” things in a conservative direction.
4 Likes
Only if Democrats organize to oppose it.
Ruth is ready to retire. What happens then?
4 Likes
The public does not like gridlock. The public knows that leaving a vacancy on the court for politics or personal pique is bad government.
We’ve had gridlock for the past 8 years. 8 years. Have you seen people in the streets specifically because of partisan gridlock? I haven’t.
11 Likes
“We are at risk of losing legitimacy as a nation in terms of being able to govern effectively.”
More specifically, the republican party has already lost legitimacy.
What would be interesting is if another of the conserative judges dies or resigns. I don’t wish harm to the judges, but wouldn’t that be sweet “justice”!
4 Likes
This puts repuke senators in a terrible light just before a crucial election. But I despise the lot of them already. This is what they mean by putting a check on Hillary in the down-ballot races. A continuation of eight years of obstruction. Dems need to change that filibuster rule ASAP!
3 Likes
The Dems are going to retake the senate and go nuclear on SCOTUS confirmations, so this is all academic.
5 Likes
Bbbbbuuutttt… I thought McConnell said they wanted the American People to decide who gets to fill Scalia’s seat!
Don’t tell me that the Party of Herr Trump is full of depraved, loathsome, baldfaced lying traitorous weasels! Oh say it ain’t so!
The absurd and dangerous obstructionist attitude and actions of these whining tittybabies and yammering idiots are killing this country.
Their plan: We may have to destroy the country to save it.
Dems need to take the Senate and eliminate the filibuster ASAP. Fuck these obstructionists.
11 Likes
No. But I have seen a real possibility that we will regain the Senate. And record turnout in early voting.
I’m not the first to point this out (I saw it on a comment to a story in the ABA Journal), but there is actually a statute that covers this. 28 USC §1 provides, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice
of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.”
It doesn’t say the Supreme Court MAY consist of 9 justices; it doesn’t say it may consist of whatever number of justices Ted Cruz decides is in his best partisan interests. It says the Court SHALL consist of 9 justices.
The statute was passed in 1948, and while I have not gone into any depth to determine why it was passed, it’s possible it was passed in reaction to FDR’s attempt to pack the Court during the New Deal.
The Republicans who even consider not acting on a Clinton appointment are craven partisans - so what else is new?
13 Likes
Dummies.