General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill the Democrats pack the court if Amy is nominated/confirmed?
and if so, how and by how many?
Rule of Claw
(500 posts)I don't think Amy will be confirmed. I don't even think there will be a vote at least before the election. Democrats know they can delay it at least until the lame duck session.
But why, why will Amy not be confirmed?
I..hmm, I wonder.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Rule of Claw
(500 posts)textbook protocols.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Rule of Claw
(500 posts)quorums, clotures, more detail here-though I don't love Raw Story.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/capitulation-not-an-option-memo-details-how-dems-can-stall-or-stop-gop-rush-to-confirm-trump-scotus-pick/
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Among other things, all of the recommendations it makes involve Senate rules, which either don't operate the way the author's seem to think they do or that McConnell can change at any time.
In addition, the arguments about cloture and quora were apparently crafted by someone unfamiliar with those rules. For example, McConnell eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, so Democrats cannot stop the invocation of cloture in this matter.
Denial of a quorum is also not an option since, even if every Democrat refuses to show up, the Republicans will still have a quorum. And any of the maneuvers this memo suggests can be easily shut down by McConnell with no problem.
It's easy to argue in general that the Democrats should do something they're not doing. But anyone understanding the rules of the Senate knows that it's not that simple.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Rule of Claw
(500 posts)she will even be allowed to accept the offer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthBend/comments/iybwe4/is_people_of_praise_a_cult/
Collins Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Lee, Tillis, and Toomey are all possible nos once this gets out.
Response to Rule of Claw (Reply #13)
MoonRiver This message was self-deleted by its author.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Makes sense, but I think those power grabbers will go for it.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)Dems can admit additional states to fix the electoral college tilt and gain additional Senators. The court cant outlaw every law. Healthcare can be required to fly patients for free to abortion states.
CTyankee
(63,944 posts)have the votes for it? But wouldn't it have to be a constitutional amendment? That takes time...
Cicada
(4,533 posts)Here is the law, in the constitution: New states may be admitted by the congress
That is the law. 37 states have been admitted, none required a constitutional amendment
States were admitted for political reasons in the past. This is nothing new.
CTyankee
(63,944 posts)I was just a kid so it's kinda distorted in my mind...(there was a dumb Texas joke about Alaska which would be the largest state, knocking TX down..."Yeah, but wait til the ice melts..."
I said it was dumb...
Cicada
(4,533 posts)They usually require first a vote by the residents on whether they want to be a state. They sometimes require a Presidential proclamation also. There have been other things required. But all of that is optional.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)North Star Borough, like a county. It was kind of a thrill to realize that sometimes when I wandered I was probably the only human to ever be where I was.
CTyankee
(63,944 posts)to something else. I decided I was living in a state populated by a bunch of boneheads (excepting my loving family) and I had best get the hell out when I could. I went to college in the East and never went back (to live). My family had conniptions...
Cicada
(4,533 posts)Those words were written by the great Texas philosopher, Kinky Friedman. Who lives in a lavishly furnished ten foot green trailer in Kerrville. A personal friend of both Bill Clinton and W Bush. A friend of mine went to high school with him and took me back stage to meet him when he was playing with his band the Texas Jewboys. Joan said to him I guess youve got a lot of girlfriends now. He replied Joan, me and the boys is only into long term meaningful relationships. He is one of the funniest and smartest guys alive.
maxsolomon
(33,516 posts)that is absurd. not even a million and a half between them, and 4 senators.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)We gave it a good try. We paid for the railroads, we built the interstate highway system, we really gave it a good shot. But its time to admit that the Great Plains are just not suited for human habitation. We need to pull out, put the buffalo back in, sell it to Disney so they can operate it as a giant Wild West themed amusement park.
maxsolomon
(33,516 posts)Cicada
(4,533 posts)I really like the idea, of course. Thank you for educating me.
Crunchy Frog
(26,729 posts)but yes, I don't think a Democratic administration will be able to get anything done without doing it.
DFW
(54,622 posts)If the radical right owns the Court, Republicans will flood the countrys legal system with challenges to every initiative Democrats pass. The right wing SCOTUS will be salivating at the chance to nix every one. Voting rights, abortion rights, civil rights, all hinge on a Supreme Court that will uphold them. A 6-3 radical right majority will not.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Any action the Democrats take would be intended to unpack it.
Big Blue Marble
(5,162 posts)It should be expand the court to rebalance the stolen seats.
CTyankee
(63,944 posts)DFW
(54,622 posts)If the radical right owns the Court, Republicans will flood the countrys legal system with challenges to every initiative Democrats pass. The right wing SCOTUS will be salivating at the chance to nix every one. Voting rights, abortion rights, civil rights, all hinge on a Supreme Court that will uphold them. A 6-3 radical right majority will not.
sarisataka
(19,056 posts)Wanderlust988
(509 posts)I think the only way all Dems get on board is if there's a fix for the SC where it's not partisan anymore. I don't think Dems will pass a true court packing, just simply adding justices and that's it. I think they may pass something where they rotate judges from the lower courts, etc., so it'll be something not as partisan. That may happen. But I don't envision a true court packing and nothing else.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Second, Democrats have to have the votes to do it. They'd have to get rid of the filibuster since the GOP likely would force it to 60 votes and I doubt they'd have the votes then.
So...it's a tough proposition.