I highly recommend everyone listen to the episode of Stay Tuned with Preet from last Thursday. He interviews Ron Klain who was chief of staff for Gore, Biden, and Janet Reno - also worked on the...
I highly recommend everyone listen to the episode of Stay Tuned with Preet from last Thursday. He interviews Ron Klain who was chief of staff for Gore, Biden, and Janet Reno - also worked on the vetting process for eight SCOTUS nominees. He talks about Kavanaugh's meteoric rise from not even being on Trump's list of top 20 candidates from 2017 to the eventual nominee this summer. Incredibly eye-opening. Basically, Kavanaugh marketed himself to the right-to-life movement through the Garza v Hargan dissent, which figuratively screamed to monied conservative powers that he would be the guy to overturn Roe. Then when his extreme views on presidential indictments ultimately became known to Trump, that catapulted him to the top of the list.
Klain goes into more depth and analysis, but it's wild to think that Kavanaugh was not even on the map in 2017 then the nominee by mid-2018. Also disclaimer, I may be oversimplifying Klain's analysis, but that was the gist of it.
Ron Klain has worked on the confirmation or selection of eight Supreme Court Justices. He was chief of staff to Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Janet Reno, and Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He talks to Preet about the Kavanaugh hearings, the missing documents, and what happens next. Plus, Preet explains the 25th Amendment.
I agree that the piece gives a good overview of the situation. I'm just not sure about the conclusions it draws though: this administration/congress has done incredible things that they surely...
I agree that the piece gives a good overview of the situation.
I'm just not sure about the conclusions it draws though: this administration/congress has done incredible things that they surely wouldn't do. The stakes with the supreme court are high. Why won't they just get the confirmation forced through now?
I'm not even sure all 47 democratic senators and both independents will vote against Kavanaugh due to electoral positioning during this time of reelection campaigns. Then turning at least two republicans on top of that?
I'm sure all the leadership in both parties and whips are hardly sleeping these days. We're talking about a generation on the Supreme Court. Stakes couldn't be higher.
I think one of the most important reasons why Puerto Rico and DC don't get statehood are that it would likely swing the Senate in democratic favor in the near rather than demographically-changed...
I think one of the most important reasons why Puerto Rico and DC don't get statehood are that it would likely swing the Senate in democratic favor in the near rather than demographically-changed farther future.
I don't think the composition of judges or judges on the court will be arguments for court packing. I don't think court packing is even realistically on the table before things like (say 20 year) term limits for the Supreme Court, or age limits or other changes are made.
Due to the nature of the court being run by judges who will pretty much always be unaffected by future changes, the Supreme Court is extremely resilient at blocking change to itself if the sitting judges don't want it.
Realistically, the court can always point to politicians and say "you've got the tools to make changes, but have to do so legislatively" and then show to the broken systems in the Constitution that were written over 200 years ago.
Changing (rather than just amending) the Constitution is too hard and politics is too polarized for that to realistically happen on major issues that need to be fixed for a rebalance of power towards the legislative away from the judiciary and executive branches.
The Supreme Court is only as powerful as it is in effectively writing the rules of the country because the politicians are failing so hard at writing new laws or making sweeping changes to existing ones. Obama had to rely on presidential orders for a lot of things that'd traditionally been passed into law. That's why Trump has been able to undo so much of his policy so easily.
I think that changing the number of Supreme Court members is more likely than terms or other changes because we've seen it happen in the past, unlike the other changes.
I think that changing the number of Supreme Court members is more likely than terms or other changes because we've seen it happen in the past, unlike the other changes.
This seems like a terrible idea. Just like Harry Reid getting rid of the supermajority requirement to stop a filibuster, what is to stop the republicans from doing the same thing when the pendulum...
This seems like a terrible idea. Just like Harry Reid getting rid of the supermajority requirement to stop a filibuster, what is to stop the republicans from doing the same thing when the pendulum swings back? Why take the blame for setting the precedent of "If things don't go my way, I'll just break the system." We're arguably worse off without the filibuster requirement. I posit that packing the court would be much much worse.
What's stopping them from doing it now? The Supreme Court hasn't always been 9 judges. Why should only 9 people decide which laws stay and go with no real ability to remove them? Clarence Thomas...
What's stopping them from doing it now? The Supreme Court hasn't always been 9 judges. Why should only 9 people decide which laws stay and go with no real ability to remove them? Clarence Thomas ruled over cases relating the ACA while his wife was a lobbyist, lobbying against the ACA. It should be a much larger body.
What does that have to do with anything? Of course conservatives wouldn't like it if Dems packed the courts. However it's their own fault for holding up nominations under Obama, passing over...
What does that have to do with anything? Of course conservatives wouldn't like it if Dems packed the courts. However it's their own fault for holding up nominations under Obama, passing over Merrick Garland, cramming though Gorsuch and not Kavanaugh, and all the rest of the bad faith governance they've been up to.
I highly recommend everyone listen to the episode of Stay Tuned with Preet from last Thursday. He interviews Ron Klain who was chief of staff for Gore, Biden, and Janet Reno - also worked on the vetting process for eight SCOTUS nominees. He talks about Kavanaugh's meteoric rise from not even being on Trump's list of top 20 candidates from 2017 to the eventual nominee this summer. Incredibly eye-opening. Basically, Kavanaugh marketed himself to the right-to-life movement through the Garza v Hargan dissent, which figuratively screamed to monied conservative powers that he would be the guy to overturn Roe. Then when his extreme views on presidential indictments ultimately became known to Trump, that catapulted him to the top of the list.
Klain goes into more depth and analysis, but it's wild to think that Kavanaugh was not even on the map in 2017 then the nominee by mid-2018. Also disclaimer, I may be oversimplifying Klain's analysis, but that was the gist of it.
Yep, the episode is right there at the top.
Leave it to Trump to appoint a possible, if not probable, rapist to a position that will affect women's autonomy over their own bodies.
I agree that the piece gives a good overview of the situation.
I'm just not sure about the conclusions it draws though: this administration/congress has done incredible things that they surely wouldn't do. The stakes with the supreme court are high. Why won't they just get the confirmation forced through now?
I'm not even sure all 47 democratic senators and both independents will vote against Kavanaugh due to electoral positioning during this time of reelection campaigns. Then turning at least two republicans on top of that?
I'm sure all the leadership in both parties and whips are hardly sleeping these days. We're talking about a generation on the Supreme Court. Stakes couldn't be higher.
I think one of the most important reasons why Puerto Rico and DC don't get statehood are that it would likely swing the Senate in democratic favor in the near rather than demographically-changed farther future.
I don't think the composition of judges or judges on the court will be arguments for court packing. I don't think court packing is even realistically on the table before things like (say 20 year) term limits for the Supreme Court, or age limits or other changes are made.
Due to the nature of the court being run by judges who will pretty much always be unaffected by future changes, the Supreme Court is extremely resilient at blocking change to itself if the sitting judges don't want it.
Realistically, the court can always point to politicians and say "you've got the tools to make changes, but have to do so legislatively" and then show to the broken systems in the Constitution that were written over 200 years ago.
Changing (rather than just amending) the Constitution is too hard and politics is too polarized for that to realistically happen on major issues that need to be fixed for a rebalance of power towards the legislative away from the judiciary and executive branches.
The Supreme Court is only as powerful as it is in effectively writing the rules of the country because the politicians are failing so hard at writing new laws or making sweeping changes to existing ones. Obama had to rely on presidential orders for a lot of things that'd traditionally been passed into law. That's why Trump has been able to undo so much of his policy so easily.
I think that changing the number of Supreme Court members is more likely than terms or other changes because we've seen it happen in the past, unlike the other changes.
This seems like a terrible idea. Just like Harry Reid getting rid of the supermajority requirement to stop a filibuster, what is to stop the republicans from doing the same thing when the pendulum swings back? Why take the blame for setting the precedent of "If things don't go my way, I'll just break the system." We're arguably worse off without the filibuster requirement. I posit that packing the court would be much much worse.
What's stopping them from doing it now? The Supreme Court hasn't always been 9 judges. Why should only 9 people decide which laws stay and go with no real ability to remove them? Clarence Thomas ruled over cases relating the ACA while his wife was a lobbyist, lobbying against the ACA. It should be a much larger body.
So you would be fine if the conservatives put Cavanaugh plus 3 new judges in right now?
What does that have to do with anything? Of course conservatives wouldn't like it if Dems packed the courts. However it's their own fault for holding up nominations under Obama, passing over Merrick Garland, cramming though Gorsuch and not Kavanaugh, and all the rest of the bad faith governance they've been up to.