Will he get it from senators who will soon be in the minority?Jeebus, Scott, of course he’ll get the votes after the election! Can you doubt this?
rc
Re: But he needs 50+1 votes.
Will he get it from senators who will soon be in the minority?Jeebus, Scott, of course he’ll get the votes after the election! Can you doubt this? rc |
|
McConnell has had trouble counting in the past.
Mark Kelly's race is a special election so he will probably be seated in November. It only takes a tiny number of votes to deny Moscow Mitch and Donnie the seat. It's not over yet. Cheers, Scott. |
|
"It's not over yet." No, Our Rome doesn't burn ..we are amidst the s l o w death-via-Despicables®.
|
|
Do you imagine, for example…
that Susan Collins, one of the purportedly “moderate” GOP senators, will, in defeat, do the right thing? On the contrary, a vote of “fuck you” to her treacherous constituents will secure her a lucrative sinecure at some right-wing think tank. Relying on the present GOP Senate caucus to behave in principled fashion is like trusting Lucy to hold the football in place. cynically, |
|
No, I'm not counting on Disappointed Susan.
Politicians like to stay in power. They're not going to blindly run off a cliff if they see other, better, options. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/21/senate-republicans-supreme-court-vote-419698 Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) oppose moving forward with a nomination, meaning that McConnell can afford to lose only one more Republican in the 53-47 GOP-majority Senate. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) has yet to reveal his position, as Democrats remain united that Ginsburg’s replacement should not be considered until next year. I suspect that they're going to rush some hearings but won't have a floor vote before the election day. There really isn't enough time, even as Moscow Mitch tries to rush it. (Like Jane Mayer reported, I too believe that he's more interested in maintaining power than having a very possibly temporary SCOTUS win, so he'll tread more carefully than he wants you to believe.) What happens after November 3 is anyone's guess. It may very well depend on the size of the blue wave. But even if they do ram someone onto the court this year, it's not over. Progress is slow and comes in fits and starts. Biden would have every reason to push for enlarging the SCOTUS and for other reforms (an Amendment for 18 year terms sounds like a good idea, along with some other things) and could bring much of the country with him. We'll see. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Why 18 years?
I understand you don't want judicial philosophy changing with Presidents, but serving three times as long as a senator seems excessive to me. It's not like we don't have enough lawyers. The year the US Constitution was ratified, White Male life expectancy (because back then, that's all that mattered) was 38 years. The youngest ever justice was 32 when he joined the bench. I'll concede that most justices lived well beyond life expectancy, but there is a compelling argument that the framers didn't think anyone would be on the bench for more than six years or so. A term of ten years is plenty. I certainly wouldn't support any more than that. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
On 38 years
That's a bad number to use. Now take the life expectancy of people who made it out of infancy. Much higher number - 54 for men, 56 for women. That number will, of course, be higher the more money you had. |
|
What Peter said
Those old “life expectancy” stats reflected both the mortality rate of infants and of their mothers. A male of the economic class from which Supreme Court justices were selected could reasonably expect to reach, say, my present age—and I was born not quite half a year after George VI pegged out. cordially, |
|
Yup.
Franklin - 84 John Adams - 91 etc. MM - I mentioned 18 because I'd seen it mentioned elsewhere. Someone out there wants to include something like a new justice could only serve the remaining time of the justice they replace (e.g. Thomas couldn't resign at the end of 17.95 years and be replaced by his clone to sit there for a fresh 18 year term). I expect there will be a lot of various proposals talked about with increasing fervor coming in January. Rand - you were right to suspect that Moscow Mitch will keep his minions together. Supposedly he wants a vote as soon as October 28 (according to a story at TheHill today). It'll be interesting how much gravel Schumer can throw in the gears (e.g. the 2 hour rule he invoked today). Cheers, Scott. |
|
This is just a thought experiment, though, isn't it?
I don't think any of us expect there to be any changes made with respect to lifetime appointments do we? I certainly don't. I don't expect any immediate (or slowly evolving for that matter) miracles. This is a broken government printing gobs of money to move around so that no one will notice that our broken government sits atop a broken economic system. What remains as true today as when I first uttered it during the 1992 campaign, no nation in the history of the world has survived a debt as large as ours is right now. TBH, back then I wouldn't have thought we could just continue printing money to make up for the failure of Capitalism to this point. It is amazing to me that still not enough people have looked behind the curtain to not burn it all down, but simply acknowledge that it is already burned down. It is quite the spectacle. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Thus: When?? do other countries wake-up to our ∞ paper-backed specie supply.. Hmm?
|
|