Many of those people voted to confirm Ginsburg along with Sotomayor and Kagan.. Again if there isn't the President there to make the appointment there really isn't much they can do. I strongly doubt if Ginsburg's seat is still open in February and the Democrats are in the majority Manchin or Tester wouldn't vote for a liberal nominee that Biden puts up. And yes a SD Democrat is different than MA. Does that mean SD doesn't count? This is exactly why we have the structure we do so small states don't get left behind by large states and that the US federal government has to pay attention to small rural states and not just large urban states.
I've thought a little more about my response and will give SamFisher credit on consistency as in 2016 he was for expansion of the court even though that might mean increasing the conservative majority.
They don't get left out. They just have 70 times the voting power of someone in another state to select federal judges. Again, you are only looking at SC nominations. There are so many more federal judge positions and they are going to be mostly conservative leaning because of how the Senate is structured. When has "don't want to leave rural states behind" turned into "they need overwhelmingly undue influence in our legislative and judicial process that drowns out urban voters". There isn't a middle ground because we definitely aren't in the middle ground currently.
With a 6-3 majority, abortion and ACA will be gone very quickly. Millions will lose their health insurance and many deaths will result from this. Do you want to tell those people who will lose their health insurance that the dems should not stack the court or end the filibuster because i may come back to haunt them tomorrow and that's not worth saving their lives today?
It is not that they don't care, it's that the cost to do it would destroy the legitimacy of the court, it'll actually just destroy the court. That's a high price to pay for a game they are already winning. All the examples of Collins et all are different. The scenario they will be put in is entirely different and I don't think it's fair to compare it to keeping status quo vs destroying the court in the face of a populace that just told you they didn't want a 6-3 court. They are giving the Dems a greenlight to manufacture a new court, and not everyone benefits from just voting party line.
Elections have consequences. If enough people are bothered with it, then they will elect politicians that will support the ACA and Abortion rights. The answer is not to increase the size of the court.
Elections do have consequences and so does pulling what Mitch McConnell is doing in voting on a SCOTUS pick this close to an election 4 years after arguing against doing this one full year before an election. I think if they do put a right-winger on the court, the Dems should give them Republicans a choice. 1) Add 2 liberal justices and agree to create law around how future SCOTUS picks are chosen restoring the 2/3 majority required 2) Add 4 liberal justices
Stacking the court will not give them health insurance, legislation will. States still have the greatest say over Abortions and red states will feel the brunt of people moving out. I don't see how stacking the courts in the future will stop any of that.
Not necessarily... while congress can write new legislation, the republican extreme right wing minority will rely on the 6-3 court to shoot any legislation down.
That still does not save them by packing the court like I said, that horse would be out of the barn. And it's not so easy to get stuff in front of the SC.
It will be easier to get the new replacement legislation approved with an expanded Supreme Court than the soon to be 6-3 activist extreme right wing court. The sooner we accept that the court will soon be 6-3 and that the consequences will be the loss of a woman's right to choose (the 6-3 court overturning precedence set by RvW) and eliminating the preexisting conditions protection provided by the ACA, the sooner the necessary steps to restore them can be started.
Too bad it isn't going to be the last gasp. I'm really tired of this version of the Republican party.
That doesn't do anything. The Senate can still vote on nominations while the government is shut down. In fact, I'd argue that the Republicans would benefit from a government shutdown because they could blame the Democrats for that and deflect form what they are doing. And to shut down the government before an election (regardless of the reason) would be insane. Enjoy winning an election after you vote to put hundreds of thousands of government workers out of a paycheck temporarily. That would be a tactically idiotic move by Democrats if they do that.
You don't need to get legislation approved by the SC, I don't know where you are getting that from. It can be reviewed by the SC and that usually takes time. If you have control of Congress and the presidency you can just rewrite the law and pass it again. Once again abortion is gonna be a state by state issue the SC cannot just abolish abortion. I really think many are giving the SC powers that they just do not have. Stacking the court has nothing to do with legislation being approved or enacted initially.
