Democrat Stupidity re: Supreme Court stacking

Started by fauxlaw

Replies
4
Posts
5
Page
1 / 1

Conversation

#1 •••
🔗 Link

The president does not appoint Supremes, they are nominated, only. It is the Senate which makes the appointments. Blame them for the alleged stupidities of appointments, although I see no stupids on that Bench, just variations of opinion, which is the way it is supposed to work, and does in the mid-80s percentile since the Court has overturned itself in a little less than the 15s percentie in its entire history. 

So, why are Domcrats juiced up to stack the Court? Now that is stupid.


Consider that over the same history, 23% of S.C. nominees have failed to be approved by the Senate, so that piece of the puzzle is far more problematic to the Court's relative success than the common accusation that the Court is biased one way or another.


Consider that had Justice Ginsberg survived to see the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health 2022 case, she would have likely sided with the majority to overturn Roe. She stated in public several times in her later years that she thought Roe was a flawed decision.


Edit comment

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#2 •••
🔗 Link
@fauxlaw
The president does not appoint Supremes, they are nominated, only. It is the Senate which makes the appointments. Blame them for the alleged stupidities of appointments,

This argument sucks if you're trying to defend the president(s) from the blame for a bad apple on the bench.


Anyway, it's really funny to see the leftoids who will scream to the sky about how Trump is destroying our democracy... and then advocate for packing the courts.

Edit post

I still don’t know what to type!

#3 •••
🔗 Link
@Mag1cman
This argument sucks if...


And that's the problem with if/then logic; it isn't. That which typically follows "if" is currently untrue, and therefore cannot possible justify whatever "if" is. In this case, justified blame of the president for who is on the Court, since presidents only nominate, and nearly a quarter of all nomination fail to be appointed, as I said. Blames the Senate for your Court appointees.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#4 •••
🔗 Link
@fauxlaw

Before 2013, you needed 60 Senate votes for judicial appointments.


Edit post

#5 •••
🔗 Link

Yes, prior to a rule change in 

November 2013, a supermajority of 60 Senate votes was effectively required to end debate (invoke cloture) on most presidential judicial nominees (excluding the Supreme Court) and allow for a final confirmation vote. 

This 60-vote threshold was needed because the minority party could use the filibuster to block a final vote indefinitely. The 2013 rule change, often called the "nuclear option," lowered this threshold to a simple majority (51 votes) for most judicial and executive branch appointments. The 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court nominees remained until 2017, when it too was lowered to a simple majority. 


Edit post