Democrats warn GOP: Don't fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020 or we'll retaliate

[bluewater]

Source: NBC News

Senate talk of a potential — but uncertain — opening close to a presidential election has reignited a clash over the future of the court.



Democrats are warning Republicans not to fill a possible Supreme Court vacancy this year after denying President Barack Obama the chance in 2016, saying it would embolden a push on the left to add seats to the court whenever they regain power.

"We knew basically they were lying in 2016, when they said, 'Oh, we can't do this because it's an election year.' We knew they didn't want to do it because it was President Obama," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in an interview.

Kaine, the party's last vice presidential nominee and a lawmaker with a reputation as an institutionalist, said confirming a nominee of President Donald Trump this year could compel Democrats to consider adding seats to the high court.

"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."

In a sweeping statement of intent, the Democratic National Committee is poised to add language to the party's 2020 platform endorsing "structural court reforms to increase transparency and accountability."

The draft language, reviewed by NBC News and expected to be approved later this month, denounces Republicans as having "packed our federal courts with unqualified, partisan judges who consistently rule for corporations, the wealthy, and Republican interests" and for "blocking a Democratic president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court."

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-warn-gop-don-t-fill-supreme-court-vacancy-2020-n1234885

[Roc2020]

1. That crossed my mind a while back

the filibuster might be gone anyways, but if the GOP add another SC member, it's gone before the end of January 2021. Add 90% chance the Dems would vote to add more SC members. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[cstanleytech]

34. Plus they could also add more judges to the varies appeals courts.

[Roc2020]

40. I didn't think of that

the Dems could do a lot to balance the courts

[cstanleytech]

64. And they might well have to considering the behavior of the Republicans.

[aggiesal]

46. This would have to be done prior to the new congress being sworn in ...

I believe that's the first working day of the new year.
If the (D) take control, they won't introduce a new nominee until after a new president is sworn in 3 weeks later.

Hopefully we can get rid of the cancer known as Moscow Mitch McTurtle this Nov. as well.
He's been the architect of this court mess.
Purely intentional.

Watch for his response. It will be toxic.

[brush]

2. This is a little scary. Are they anticipating RGB may not survive...

the year? Scary. And if that happens, I doubt Moscow Mitch would hesitate for a second to try to push through another repug justice which would dramatically tilt the balance of SCOTUS even more to the right. I think he'd roll the dice and live with whatever consequences that may or may not happen in the future.

[Harker]

15. McConnell has already declared he would.

This is pretty clearly Trumpsky's last year in office, too.

Shame? They have none.

[JeaneRaye]

18. Or Thomas plans to retire?

There have also been rumors swirling that Clarence Thomas may retire. So there are possibilities of an opening on the SC on two fronts.

[llmart]

36. Why would Thomas retire?

It's not like he ever did any actual work or anything. Just sitting there like another potted plant (aka Pence) doesn't tax one's body very much.

[NonPC]

45. Gotta Protect the Money

Clarence doesn't do jack, but staying on the court guarantees him and his republican sponsored lobbyist wife the ability to collect big money.

[llmart]

51. Yep.

Easy and lucrative job for a do-nothing justice.

[Zambero]

76. Thomas' judicial philosophy has evolved in recent years

Pre-2016: I'm with Justice Scalia. He speaks for me.
Post-2016: I'm with Justice Alito. He speaks for me.

[not_the_one]

31. They are hoping and praying that she dies.

I can hope (atheists don't pray) that she hangs in there. I am sure she will do her DAMNDEST.

But the democrats need to make it clear that there WILL BE NO NEW APPOINTEES TO THE SUPREME COURT THIS CLOSE TO THE ELECTION. We need to do that with such steely confidence that they will actually believe us. Because that is exactly what we will do.

The republicans MUST honor the new norm that THEY set. Or we will begin impeachment proceedings against ANYONE they appoint and railroad through. Because it was an illegitimate appointment, per their own past practices.

We can't do that, you say? Then just watch us. Let any person who they nominate know that we will make their life HELL, and it just might not be worth being nominated. There is NO TELLING what we may be able to dig up. We will take "vetting" to a whole new level. Do they really want their life gone over with a microscopic comb? I seriously doubt it.

MEANWHILE, the day after the inauguration RGB can step down, Biden can select Anita Hill (who is perfectly qualified for the seat), which will OUTRAGE Clarence Thomas, who will IMMEDIATELY step down, and Biden can nominate HILLARY CLINTON to replace him. Not only will the injustice that Anita Hill be addressed (by BIDEN, who was party to it), we will be rid of Thomas, Hillary (who WON THE PRESIDENCY) will become (again) one of the most powerful women on the planet. THEN we can address Brett, beer enthusiast, Kavanaugh. We already know he LIED to Congress. He should be easy to get rid of. Maybe a GAY replacement?

Then we can sit back and relish the sound of republican and Hillary hater's HEADS EXPLODING. I am absolutely WET with anticipation.

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. (I realize I am dreaming, but an old gay fart can dream, can't he?)

[brush]

50. I do like the Anita Hill recommendation. I'll have my popcorn...

ready so I can sit back and enjoy the Thomas schadenfruede.

[jimlup]

49. I am concerned about this as the SCOTUS may ultimately

decide the 2020 election. I can imagine a staged last minute swearing in just before the case Trump VS. Biden reaches the court.

[Neema]

77. They're pretty much rooting for RGB to die. That's how awful they are. And McConnell

is the worst of the worst because he fully intends to fill that seat if he can.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Biden needs to expand SCOTUS to at least 12 seats regardless of what GOP does this year nt

[KPN]

5. 10 or 11 at least.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. POTUS can't do that.

It's up to Congress.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Dem congress and Senate can change 9 seat limit, which Biden can sign, then appoint to new seats nt

[onetexan]

32. +1 -K&R

[LiberalFighter]

28. Odd number. Next reasonable would be 11.

[KPN]

4. They already did it. They already manipulated the Court by refusing to consoder Garland in early

2016. A warning is one thing, but if we don't use our statutory, fully-constitutional options to achieve a court that reflects the balance of the people as opposed to the 1% and Republican interests" regardless ....

Frankly, I don't like the "I don't want to do that" from Kaine. In fact, did this entirte warning/statement really even need to be made? Have we just given tRump and the Rs an issue to use against and beat us with that doesn't even exist? "The Dems/liberals are going to take over the SCOTUS if they win! The country will be saddled with a liberal court for decades!" even while they hold a clear majority on the court.

[progree]

30. "They already did it, they already manipulated the Court" - yup. The Dems already have a perfectly

valid reason for retaliating - we've got Gorsuck instead of Garland on the SC.

[spooky3]

35. I disagree. I thought this statement was carefully

crafted for the average voter (not the well informed DUer) to send a message to Mitch while also sounding very reasonable, etc. The average voter still wants to hear the “reaches across the aisle” tone even though we all know that you have to play hardball with rethugs.

[5X]

7. Glad to see they are going to hold the pre-dotard republicans to count.

They were just about as bad as the dotard-republicans have been.

[Thekaspervote]

27. This!! There actions will have consequences..finally!!

[SayItLoud]

8. We (Dems) should send signals like this (post)...then

When Dems control the Senate, WH and maintain the House we should F em and increase the SC # of judges, change laws to bring back fairness and not give a sh** about what the loud mouths like Jordan and Gaetz say. Just sayin...they don't play even remotely fair and the Dems should be calm, not raise election issues for the rePUKES and then when in power....USE IT! Lock up those who ignored legal document requests etc etc etc.

[KS Toronado]

9. I see turmoil in the streets if Moscow mitch tries to put another unqualified justice on the bench.

[CrispyQ]

10. First we have to win.

Second, adding seats to SCOTUS would take a kind of daring I haven't seen from our party in years. I hope I'm wrong about Biden, but I don't see him acting with the kind of boldness we need, even if we get him the numbers in Congress. And it's not just Biden. It's all of the old guard dems. I don't think they have come to terms with exactly how anti-American their colleagues across the aisle have become. I hope I'm wrong, but giving John Kasich a speaking spot at our convention feels like we're already trying to reach across the aisle. Let Kasich make an ad, let him host a town hall, but don't give him a spot on our national stage. When Kasich throws his hat into the presidential ring in 2024, one of his first ads will be to show what a moderate he is, with images of him on stage at our convention. We should be promoting our young dems, not make a future ad for some has-been, anti-choice, white guy from the other side.

[klook]

24. I agree with all your points 100 percent.

You don’t bring a water pistol to a house fire.

Biden, fortunately, seems to be willing to go farther to the left than I would have expected.

I’ll wait for the pudding before getting too excited. In the meantime it’s all hands on deck to get rid of Trump and damage the Republican Party as much as possible in the process.

[Chicago1980]

11. Should have retaliated last damn time....

This threat means nothing to the republicans.

I can see Trump losing the election, but one of the older conservative justices retiring, allowing Trump to put in a "fresh face".

[area51]

21. +1 n/t

[RussBLib]

44. They didn't have the means to retaliate.

They certainly will if Dems take all 3 branches

[StevieM]

12. They should be retaliating regardless of whether the GOP fills a seat this year.

We deserve to get back the seat that was supposed to go to Merrick Garland, especially since the GOP stole it with a huge assist by James Comey and the FBI.

[Vinca]

13. The GOP doesn't care. They'll rubber stamp Trump's nominee without hearings.

[dalton99a]

14. Kill the filibuster and expand the court.

Or live under their rule forever

[roamer65]

16. First step in retaliation for Merrick Garland.

NUKE THE FILIBUSTER.



Then stack the court.

[onetexan]

19. +1 K&R - get rid of the filibuster & stack the courts w our own liberal judges!!

[roamer65]

20. And put Merrick Garland in a seat.

[onetexan]

22. yes, Garland was cheated out of his SCOTUS appointment.

The SCOTUS does not need to be only 9 seats. It's about time Dems stop handling Republicans with white gloves. Evening the score is the best revenge.

[iluvtennis]

26. ++++ agree. fingers crossed we take the senate on Nov 3rd. nt

[Marcuse]

17. Mitch will call a lame duck session to crank out more judges. Older judges "will be stepping down"

before Biden and a Democratic Congress can be seated.

[onetexan]

23. two can play this game. They add one of theirs. We add 2 of ours, or more.

[PatrickforO]

29. This is very good news.

Looks like Democrats are really getting organized.

[Steelrolled]

33. I don't understand why any thoughtful person

would think that expanding the supreme court would accomplish anything. If anyone was taking it seriously, the republicans would be doing it right now. Joe would never go for it - trying to push it is one of the stains on the FDR legacy.

The way to influence the supreme court is the constitutional way, meaning WIN THE PRESIDENCY. We screwed that up in 2016, plain and simple. We can fix that in 2020, and start to gain something back.

[bluewater]

37. Merrick Garland says Hello.

Um, didn't we WIN THE PRESIDENCY back then?

The Rthugs owe the rest of us one Supreme Court appointment.

[Jedi Guy]

52. No, we didn't win the Presidency back then. We won the popular vote. Not the same thing. N/T

[bluewater]

56. Obama was ALREADY President when he nominated Merrick Garland.

For the FIRST TIME in American history, a sitting President was denied the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

Do keep up.

The Republicans did that WHEN WE ALREADY WON THE PRESIDENCY, Obama WAS PRESIDENT AT THE TIME.

This was unprecedented behavior by the Senate.

[Jedi Guy]

57. I thought you were referring to the 2016 election, which the person you responded to mentioned.

There's no need to be rude, which is exactly how the "do keep up" remark came across.

[bluewater]

58. Exactly, there is no need to be rude.

But consider your own prior words:

"I don't understand why any thoughtful person would think that expanding the supreme court would accomplish anything."

Sorry, but that came across as condescending and a bit rude.

Again, here's why "thoughtful" people want to address the Republicans preventing President Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy... IT CHANGED THE IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE ON THE COURT. Possibly for a generation.

Many thoughtful people feel this needs to be addressed and may require extraordinary steps to counter the Republicans' unprecedented actions.

It's that simple.

[Jedi Guy]

59. I believe you may wish to check who said what on this thread.

I never said "I don't understand why any thoughtful person would think that expanding the supreme court would accomplish anything." Steelrolled did.

Perhaps you'd care to apologize?

[bluewater]

60. Oh, my Mistake. I mis-followed the thread.

My deepest and most sincere apology for attributing the condescending and a bit rude quotation -- "I don't understand why any thoughtful person would think that expanding the supreme court would accomplish anything." -- to you.

But as for "do keep up", my prior comment was about MERRICK GARLAND, who was nominated while President Obama was already a sitting President. Clearly WINNING THE PRESIDENCY, appropos to Steelrolled's coment, did not prevent the Republicans from taking their unprecedented action in not allowing President Obama to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

Your comment "No, we didn't win the Presidency back then." seemed misplaced in regards to what transpired with Merrick Garland.

So, do keep up.

[Jedi Guy]

61. Wow. You stay classy there, bluewater. I think we're done here. N/T

[bluewater]

62. "You stay classy there, bluewater" descends into personal acrimony. Wow, just wow.

"I thought you were referring to the 2016 election..."

First, thank you for admitting you made a mistake.

Second, The Republicans preventing President Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy should have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2016 election. That is a major point raised in the OP article.

Third, me saying that your comment "No, we didn't win the Presidency back then." seemed misplaced in regards to what transpired with Merrick Garland was about as gentle an admonishment I could think of using. Wow, I called it "misplaced".

Fourth, HUMOR ALERT... the emoji is used to indicate a joking/kidding comment. As in, "So, do keep up "

Fifth, you saying "You stay classy there, bluewater" descends into personal acrimony. So, yeah, We are done here.

[Jedi Guy]

63. Oh give me a break.

For one, I admitted that I misunderstood. There was no need for you to "admonish" me for that, but you chose to do so anyway.

For another, you responded to me with a rude remark because you mistakenly thought I'd been rude. Rather than simply responding "I'm sorry" you had to double down and justify your rudeness. Then you repeat the rude remark as a "joke." Furthermore, were you joking/kidding when you responded to Steelrolled's initial comment, which you thought was a rude comment to begin with? I really doubt it.

So yeah, stay classy.

[HeartlandProgressive]

65. Tempest in a Tea Kettle?

Seems so.

This "rude comment" you alluded to 4 times in your last post was what again?

Was it "Do keep up"?

Really?

[Jedi Guy]

68. It was rude and condescending, and nothing I'd said warranted it.

A simple apology would've been nice, as opposed to doubling down and justifying it.

[HeartlandProgressive]

71. So your behavior is excusable but you get to call someone else rude?

It's ok for a sarcastic "stay classy, bluewater" from you.

But a humorous "So, do keep up. " warrants you an apology?

lol

Sorry, no.

[Jedi Guy]

73. I got snarky after the non-apology apology, you may note.

As I said, a simple "I'm sorry" would have sufficed and been the end of it. Instead it was "I'm justifying my rudeness."

[HeartlandProgressive]

74. So you are using a Middle School defense? Really?

But he started it!

lol

So you are still excusing your own rudeness while continuing to complain about someone you feel was rude to you.

And just to be clear, you are still complaining over the comment "So, do keep up. "

Sorry, this seems something too trivial to be so over wrought over.

[Jedi Guy]

79. You get what you give. It really is that simple. N/T

[calimary]

38. IT'S ABOUT TIME, DAMMIT!!!!!

Our Dems should have gotten tough with the GOP YEARS ago.

At least FOUR DECADES ago!

[stopbush]

39. It would be very satisfying were Yertle's years-long plan to pack the courts

with RW assholes basically negated through a single stroke of the Congressional pen.

[Illumination]

42. Merrick Garland deserves a long overdue seat! Now the Democrats need to make more NOISE!

[bucolic_frolic]

43. It's almost spine

This is drawing a line in the sand 4 years after the theft. And 2 years after the non-background check. We have to do better. No there are not consequences for the next time, and floating this idea in the press does cause me worry, there are consequences for the last time. Issues surrounding the last two confirmations are not dead and buried and forgotten. They are front and center, because Democrats have to act like a dominant majority party too!

[sandensea]

47. Court-packing didn't work for a statesman like FDR. It's certainly not going to work for Orange Amin

[pecosbob]

66. Actually the threat of increasing the number of judges did work.

Roosevelt was able to pass his desired legislation after simply making the threat.

[sandensea]

69. Thanks for the clarification

My understanding was that, while he had mostly successes on the legislative front (with some pushback from Dixiecrats), it was the GOP-dominated Supreme Court that presented the greatest obstacle by simply declaring his legislation and programs "unconstitutional" on sight.

Which goes to show that when it comes to the use and abuse of the court, Republicans are nothing if not predictable.

In any case, how far we've fallen.

From FDR, to EFFING ARRGGH!

[Dopers_Greed]

48. What can they actually do though?

They have been completely powerless to stop the GOP from doing a million other horrible things.

[Polybius]

53. I'm a little worried by this

Do they know something that we don't?

[BadGimp]

54. Yeah, this time we'll use squirt guns

[Grasswire2]

55. DC and PR statehood too, when we prevail.

Lock things down for the next 4-8 years while the GOP self destructs.

[pecosbob]

67. Roosevelt achieved passage of the desired legislation simply by making the threat

to increase the size of the court. Roosevelt's aim was to pass legislation, not to increase the size of the court.

[BigDemVoter]

70. It's about goddamned time they learn to play hard ball.

[Buckeyeblue]

72. I think there is an argument to be made that 9 justices may not be the right number

The country has grown a great deal since the number was set at 9 in the late 1860's. I'm not sure what the correct number would be but given the country is probably twice the size, maybe the number should double.

I also think justices should have to retire at the end of the courts term in which they turn 72.

I would like a less political process for filling court vacancies but I don't know what that would look like.

[Danascot]

75. Kavanaugh can be impeached

and removed for lying during his hearings and on prior occasions.

Replacing him would make it 5-4 on the side of the angels.

As for the lower courts many of the Macconnell appointed judges are unqualified and could be removed.

[mudstump]

78. I love RBG, but....she should have retired during the eight years of the Obama presidency.

That's just how I feel about it.

[Grins]

80. What crap.

“I think we have sufficient grounds to pursue structural reform...If Republicans...”

If you have grounds then what’s this “if” shit?

JFC why can’t Democrats, fight back??? Pull the damn switch! Set the house on fire! Do you think that if the tables were turned the Republicans would hesitate an instant to set the world on fire?