Jump to content

SCOTUS Justice Breyer To Retire


Stoney

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Breyer knows Democrats will lose bigly and steps down. McConnell can’t block. Dems will get their pick.

It's a smart move on their part.  The issue I really have with this, is that it shows that the Supreme Court is now completely political and not constitutional like it should be.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BarryLaverty said:

So, yeah, are Republicans going to pull the blocking tactic for three more years? Or should the timeline be to whenever Trump reassumes the throne, based on QAnon belief? 

Is there a blocking tactic that can stop the appointment before the midterms?  Or is it 100% a sure thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MavGrad99 said:

It's a smart move on their part.  The issue I really have with this, is that it shows that the Supreme Court is now completely political and not constitutional like it should be.

It is a smart move.  RGB didn't retire when she was asked and dems paid for that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

So, yeah, are Republicans going to pull the blocking tactic for three more years? Or should the timeline be to whenever Trump reassumes the throne, based on QAnon belief? 

I don't think its just QANON loonies believing this...

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-health-inflation-6b6b0abfef867fc405e9f358ce2c3a09

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ObiOne said:

It is a smart move.  RGB didn't retire when she was asked and dems paid for that one.

exactly.  There should be some balance, like we mostly see in the senate when it comes to SCOTUS.  However, there shouldn't be a need for balance in the Supreme Court.  It should all be based on what is in front of them and the guidelines and parameters that have been in place since the start of this great nation.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Trading far left liberal loon Breyer for another far left liberal loon means absolutely nothing to either party. This is just a desperate attempt to try to give Biden a win because everyone hates him and knows he demented.

It gives them a little insurance that the new loon will be there for 20+ years.  But yes, they hope it helps Biden and the mid-terms but I don't know if anything can help that.  Except more election cheating.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ObiOne said:

Is there a blocking tactic that can stop the appointment before the midterms?  Or is it 100% a sure thing?

If Biden waits too long (say, until July or August) to nominate someone, I could see McConnell trying. If he nominates in the next few weeks, I don't see it happening.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MavGrad99 said:

exactly.  There should be some balance, like we mostly see in the senate when it comes to SCOTUS.  However, there shouldn't be a need for balance in the Supreme Court.  It should all be based on what is in front of them and the guidelines and parameters that have been in place since the start of this great nation.

This is why I think "advice and consent" of the Senate is an interesting thing.

If I were President, I would make the Senate majority and minority work together on it. I would have my own list (of course) of justices that I might like, but I would demand that the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders work with each other, and come up with an agreed-upon list of potential justices for me to review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple for McConnell, all he has to do is keep the GOP together in NOT confirming a justice until they regain control of the Senate,because don't they have to have 60 votes to confirm unless they go nuclear again. And that did not work out well the last time that started that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

It is simple for McConnell, all he has to do is keep the GOP together in NOT confirming a justice until they regain control of the Senate,because don't they have to have 60 votes to confirm unless they go nuclear again. And that did not work out well the last time that started that. 

Kind of long but here is something I found.

https://time.com/6142711/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-mitch-mcconnell-stephen-breyer/

There’s one major problem facing Biden’s prospects, though: he might not be able to win confirmation for the expected pick. So much of influence in Washington isn’t in the press conferences or performative turns on cable news. The real power comes from mastering the process by which it is transferred, accumulated and defended. And, when it comes to managing a generational shift of power in America’s judicial system, no one has proven more adept than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Senate is split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. So far, so good, given past Senators have changed the rules for judicial nominees to get across the finish line with just 51 votes. The so-called nuclear option is meant as a last resort, but with the exception of Chief Justice John Roberts, none of the current conservative Justices cleared a 60-vote benchmark.

But the nuclear option can go into motion only if the Judiciary Committee reports the nomination to the floor, a procedural move that says whether a majority on the committee recommends the full Senate consider the pick. Well, in a little-noticed backroom deal that took more than a month to hammer out, McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to a power-sharing plan in February that splits committee membership, staffs and budgets in half. (A full nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Research Service regarding the current process for nominees is here.)

Why does this matter? If all 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee oppose Biden’s pick and all 11 Democrats back her, the nomination goes inert. (A pretty safe bet in a committee where at least half of the Republican members have White House ambitions of their own.) The nomination doesn’t die, but it does get parked until a lawmaker—historically, the Leader of the party—brings it to the floor for four hours of debate.

A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.

Given this is an election year and Republicans have historically shown they’re not willing to give Democrats any wins on the Supreme Court in such a politically charged environment, there’s a good chance that Biden’s nominee spends her summer waiting for invites that never come from GOP lawmakers asking her in for typically cordial and informal coffees.

So, yes, Biden may get to nominate a pick for the Supreme Court. But there’s no guarantee that the full Senate will take it up. After all, McConnell successfully rejected Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 and waited for Donald Trump to win the White House to install a replacement for Antonin Scalia. McConnell narrowly carved out selected history and dug his heels in that he wouldn’t bring Garland up for a vote. There was simply nothing Democrats could do about it.

And given the rules of the Senate as they stand, a resolute Republican Party can pull a sequel to the Garland nomination. Sure, the Democrats could try to change the power-sharing agreement, but as the debate on voting rights showed us in recent weeks, one hold-out voice among Democrats in favor of the filibuster can tank the plan with little consequence. Which means all of the odds-making about who might get the call from White House Counsel in the coming days, who might get tapped to sherpa the nomination through the Senate or even what this means for the next term are all likely for naught. Republicans, should they want to, can sink this nominee. And if history is predictive, that’s exactly what they’ll do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

This is why I think "advice and consent" of the Senate is an interesting thing.

If I were President, I would make the Senate majority and minority work together on it. I would have my own list (of course) of justices that I might like, but I would demand that the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders work with each other, and come up with an agreed-upon list of potential justices for me to review.

That makes too much sense.  Stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...