I am not saying for 100% certainty Shameis is guilty, but there's obviously waaaaaaaaaaay more evidence that he is than there is for Kavanaugh. Actual evidence and witnesses. Not conjecture and unbridled speculation.
Not getting into whether these cases are justified or not, if you need to stake out the moral high ground, go for it...
That's probably not all that unlikely at this point, at least for the lesser departments. The Republicans already actively sabotage many while in office and would probably be happy to obstruct Democratic leadership hoping make them even more dysfunctional and less effective (thus "proving" that "government is the problem, not the solution"). Conversely, it's not a huge stretch to think that the Democrats would rather have no EPA administrator than a guy like Scott Pruitt in charge. The critical departments, like Treasury, Defense, and State will probably always have someone, though.
You want to talk about all this precedence. What about the one where a sitting POTUS hadn't nominated a SCOTUS justice in his final year in 80 years? Or is that meaningless?
It is false. Johnson nominated two people in his final year. BTW, that was the last time there was a vacancy in the final year of a Presidential term. Before that, it was Hoover, whose nominee was confirmed. Eisenhower and FDR also nominated people in the final year of a term, although they both won re-election.
The problem is that when one side does it, the other side will follow suit at a later date if not take it further. So you had Bork and then Reid blocking Bush's lower court appointments. The GOP threatened to use the "nuclear option" by getting rid of the filibuster but that didn't happen. Then the GOP blocked Obama's appointments and Reid actually did dump the filibuster. That was followed by McConnell doing the same for SCOTUS nominations for Gorsuch. He also blocked Garland's nomination to run the clock until the GOP had power again, which leads to Feinstein using this sexual assault charge to try to do the same. It just keeps escalating and over time they are chipping away at the rules and traditions of the institutions that are there for a reason. All this for temporary political gain. What happens in the future if political deadlock results in the seats not being filled? Does precedent created by 4 or 5 justices hold the same water as decisions by 8 or 9? Does the increasing politicization of the court degrade its legitimacy? This isn't something where partisanship should play a role.
At the time, I really do think the prevailing thought "inside the beltway" was that 2016 was the GOP's election to lose (for the presidency) and that is why you had so many candidates in the GOP primary and the Dems basically gave us one. I think McConnell knew there was a good chance Hillary was going down, whomever the nominee ended up being.
I hear you and I know what you're saying. Like I said earlier, I hope after Kav is confirmed, Trump gets to appoint two more SCOTUS justices and he goes even further to the right on both of them. We need to end this 5-4, 4-5, swing vote charade. One side isn't owed a thing. Elections have consequences. Obama said it best.
I realize its not a complement, but Barbie is technically attractive in the conventional sense right?
I don't think either a far right or far left court benefits the country as a whole. So maybe you get rid of Roe if that's a big issue for you. But then there are a bunch of other decisions that may negatively affect your life, like rolling back regulatory power in the executive that could allow some unscrupulous companies to rip you off. I tend to think that ruling from a strict ideological stance is probably the worst way to govern. Approaches to jurisprudence are a bit different though as it makes sense to have a consistent approach to interpreting the law.
I wouldn't characterize Thomas's philosophy as "coherent," but I would definitely sub him out for Alito. However, I don't think Ginsburg is a good example of a justice voting based on political ideology either.
You could have let us know that your procedural complains were largely bluster a lot earlier and saved all of us a lot of trouble. This thread's already GC Hall of Fame eligible, we didn't need the page count.
So, when the Democrats inevitably take control again, you'll be fine with an expansion of the Court, since elections have consequences?
I don't know, man. I feel like Mr. Trump may have destroyed the Democratic Party for a while. They are totally bankrupt on ideas that resonate with middle America. All they seem to be doing is creating new victim classes as they have nothing on the economy or national security.. issues people truly care about.
That's wrong in a lot of ways, but setting aside the likeliness of the Democrats beating Trump in 2020, answer the question -- if it happens, will you be fine with an expansion of the Court under the doctrine of "elections have consequences"?
"Man this Gator football dynasty is gonna last a long time, everything is going gangbusters" - Me in 2008
