Should Democrats block all Republican nominees for the Supreme Court...

[kentuck]

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2024, 11:17 PM - Edit history (2)

...so long as Thomas and Alito are on the Court? In my opinion, they should make sure that not another Republican ever gets on the Supreme Court unless they have a super majority in the Senate and a Republican President.

Alito has hinted that he will step down if Trump wins in November. So let him. If Democrats win the Senate, they will not have to approve his replacement. The Court has worked with 8 Justices before and they can do it again. They have worked with 7 Justices before.

If they win the Senate, they won't have to even take up the nomination.

Republicans need to pay a high price for the corruption they have brought to the Supreme Court.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Yes that's a good idea. Mitch did it. Why not us? /nt

[ITAL]

2. Sure the House can impeach justices

Conviction takes 67 senators (or two thirds of those present, so maybe only 66 or 65 if a few are out).

In other words, I don't think that part of your plan works. I don't imagine either party is gonna get a two thirds majority any time soon.

[kentuck]

15. No, conviction is not necessary to impeach for corruption.

It makes a loud statement that they should not be sitting on the Court, conviction or not. With that reasoning, Donald Trump should never have been impeached at all.

[ITAL]

21. OP said

If Democrats take the Senate, they can do away with the 60-vote rule with a simple majority. Then they can impeach both of the bastards.

The House could impeach with a simple Democratic majority. The make up of the Senate doesn't matter if you simply wanted to impeach for the sake of it. Given the Senate was invoked, it seemed likely the meaning was to get a conviction, because again...the 60 seat Senate rule doesn't matter with the impeachment charges. Nothing regarding the Senate does.

[kentuck]

24. You are correct.

I will fix for clarification.

[onecaliberal]

3. I wish this would happen.

I am hopeful for a level of intestinal fortitude we’ve not seen. At this point that will never happen.

[jimfields33]

4. If the senate has 50 senators and the VP, definitely.

If republicans have the senate, then they only need 50 votes. But senator Harris will pick the nominee.

[onenote]

23. What 60 vote rule are you referring to?

In your post you suggest the Senate could impeach justices with a simple majority by getting rid of the 60 vote rule.

But the "60 vote" rule doesn't apply to impeachment trials (and the House already can impeach with a simple majority, so I don't think that is what you were addressing). The Constitution requires a 2/3 vote to impeach.

And there no longer is a 60 vote rule for moving a judicial nomination to a final vote. Put another way, a Trump nominee to the court couldn't be filibustered although he or she would still need a majority to be confirmed. Of course, if Trump wins the presidency it is unlikely that the Democrats will hold the Senate.

Finally, most of Biden's nominations have gotten some Repub votes. And I suspect that if by some miracle the Democrats hold the Senate but Trump wins the presidency, there are a couple of DemocratIC senators that would vote to confirm some Trump nominees.

[kentuck]

25. I thought it was two-thirds to convict in the Senate...

....and 60 votes to continue or stop debate on a nominee.

I understand that they can be impeached in the House with a simple majority.

I don't know that the Senate would go to the Republicans if Trump wins the White House. He could lose popular vote by a lot and still win the electoral vote, giving Democrats a chance to win the Senate even if Trump wins the White House. I know that is unthinkable and you are right about Democrats voting to confirm Trump nominees for the Court, but I don't know if they will continue to do that in the future, with everything that has gone down? That would really suck if Democrats had the majority and agreed to approve Trump's nominees.

It just seems to me that if Republicans can hold up Democratic nominees, then the Democrats should be able to do it in reverse?

It's too much for my small brain to contemplate at this time.

[tritsofme]

39. There is no 60 vote threshold for any presidential nominee in the Senate today.

In 2017, Mitch McConnell got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

And in 2013, Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for all non-Supreme Court nominees.

[bottomofthehill]

36. Winner, correct answer

[jimfields33]

31. The 60 vote rule is long gone.

[kentuck]

34. I deleted the comment...

Trying to keep it as accurate as possible. If not, I know the knowledgeable folks at DU will correct it.

[mercuryblues]

5. Yes.

[flying_wahini]

6. Oh hell yeah.

[EYESORE 9001]

7. I think the root cause is identified. Partisan judicial nominees.

When Democrats retake the Senate, and if a vacancy occurs, I hope no repuQ candidates make it through committee. Play by the rules, but play to win. This conservatroid monstrosity must not endure.

[SWBTATTReg]

8. Yes. They haven't treated us fairly, and have the gall to call us all kinds of names etc. when we are all Americans.

I'm tired of being insulted by these creeps.

[Freethinker65]

9. If Trump wins, will it matter?

[brush]

12. If we keep our Senate majority, Dems can just not take his nominations to the floor...

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2024, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)

just as Moscow Mitch did in blocking Pres. O's nominations to SCOTUS. IIRC he's the only pres. in recent times who didn't get a SCOTUS justice on the court.

Fucking trump, the worst president ever got three because of that scoundrel McConnell.

[ITAL]

22. Obama got two

Kagan and Sotomayor were both Obama appointees.

[brush]

43. Oh yes, you're right. My memory is so filled with how McConnell denied Pres. O his Garland pick...

allefedly because it was an election year, then hurried up and filled RBG's seat in an election year when she died.

[Polybius]

30. That was Carter

He never got a SC Justice during his term.

[onenote]

37. The Democrats controlled the Senate the entirety of his presidency

But no SCOTUS vacancy occurred during his four years in office.

[Polybius]

44. Correct

I'm sure he would have picked a good one, had he had the chance.

[brush]

10. Oh yes, play 'hard ball' as Nixon used to say. Give 'em a taste of their own...

medicine by keeping our Senate majority, getting rid of the 60-vote filibuster rule, and blocking any rethug wish list. They wouldn't control the Senate so they won't be able to approve anyone, even if there's rethug president.

[Silent Type]

11. As long as all Democrats go along. I'm hoping question is moot in 2025 with a Harris victory.

[Demsrule86]

13. They already did away with the 60 vote rule...

And no GOP president should ever get a pick with a Democratic Senate...they stole two of our nominees.

[WarGamer]

14. Constitution says 2/3 majority to REMOVE...

that's not flexible.

[kentuck]

18. Removal cannot be the sole objective.

Otherwise, Trump would never have been impeached. And no one has ever deserved it more.

[Bev54]

17. I am hoping they will no longer get the opportunity to nominate any for any federal court.

[CoopersDad]

19. Yes nt

[kentuck]

20. I guess Joe Biden was right...

...the Supreme Court is on the ballot this November.
The Supreme Court sucks.

[FBaggins]

26. The only way for us to win the senate is to beat Trump

There’s. I way to lost to Trump yet hold the senate.

In which case - all we can do is slow things down

[claudette]

27. Absolutely

[rso]

28. RSO

Your scenario assumes that Trump will win, which is unlikely to happen at this point.

[Polybius]

29. Here's the hard reality:

A Senate majority that's the opposite Party of the President will never allow a Supreme Court nominee to come to a vote in the near future.

[onenote]

38. I doubt that is true.

It would depend on the size of the majority.

[tritsofme]

40. I think there would be tremendous pressure on any Democratic majority leader to blockade any Republican nominee.

And you have to believe any Republican majority would be as intransigent as they were in 2016.

[TheFinalFive]

32. This must be a good idea

You've got about seven obvious trolls trying to discourage it.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Obvious Trolls?

Those I see countering the OP are long time DUers in good standing, the majority being Star members.
You sure about that assessment?

[ImNotGod]

33. We better block anything the fascists try to do, no if, ands or buts. nt

[BigDemVoter]

35. Yes.

The Repigs deserve payback.

[Greybnk48]

42. Yes, no matter who they are. Period. n/t