Kamala Harris' Supreme Court hearing participation could be unprecedented

[ElNono]

Cool narrative from her but the result was she held on to power. Justices playing politics with seats like that, I hope she suffered.

You could say the same for Uncle Tom Thomas, and a cadre of justices before her... I don't think what she did was necessarily new, despite being extremely risky.

[ChumpDumper]

it's funny because Dumpster is bound to get a reply to "move along" occassionally. sometimes the re s need a reminder and Dumpster is head re .

as for you don't you got someone on facebook to stalk rn?

This one will work too.

[Spurminator]

The Supreme Court portion is unprecedented. The election, no so much.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as everything surrounding the election (the SC decision, the closeness of the deciding state combined with the closeness of the EC count) then it's fair to say it was unprecedented.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as the literal act of a President being elected in 2000, then no, it's not unprecedented.

[spurraider21]

It boils down to who held control of the Senate, regardless of what was said or not said. You think it stinks? Sure. Is it unprecedented? Not really.

i dont get why you're so hung up on the semantics of what is or isn't unprecedented. depending on how broadly or narrowly you look at the cir stances, you can call it precedented or unprecedented, so it can get pretty subjective there anyway.

because yeah if the moral of the story is that the majority party of the senate can and will do whatever they they want within the edges of the confines of the cons utions, then fine. i mean technically if biden gets elected, republicans maintain control of the senate, and all 9 justices died in a big accident the day after inauguration, the senate can basically sit on all judicial nominations for the full 4 years and leave the court empty. is the importance there really whether or not it is precedented or unprecedented or whether or not its an unethical abuse of power?

in a vacuum, is confirming a justice weeks before an election "wrong?" probably not

in a vacuum, was sitting on the garland nomination for 9 months (as opposed to holding confirmation hearings and voting against his confirmation) wrong? probably (they have a duty to advise and consent... cant advise without hearings), but there's at least a hint of grey

in its totality though? any gray or justifications disappear when the same senate (same leadership) completely tosses aside their proffered rationale for the latter under identical, if not further exacerbated cir stances (significantly closer to the election)

[spurraider21]

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as everything surrounding the election (the SC decision, the closeness of the deciding state combined with the closeness of the EC count) then it's fair to say it was unprecedented.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as the literal act of a President being elected in 2000, then no, it's not unprecedented.

actually that would be unprecedented. nobody was ever elected before in 2000

[Spurminator]

I would have to look up how many presidential elections where decided by a SCOTUS ruling. If that was the first one, then it would indeed be unprecedented. Otherwise, it wouldn't be. Not really that complicated.

I agree it's not complicated, and it doesn't seem like it's that complicated with the Barrett thing either.

You're getting hung up on semantics because I guess you think I'm downplaying that RBG's screw up might have avoided this whole thing. I agree she should have stepped down, but it still seems fairly obvious that this is a SCOTUS confirmation unlike any in our history.

You can pick and choose things that are the same about it, but on the whole, it's unprecedented, end of discussion.

[Spurminator]

actually that would be unprecedented. nobody was ever elected before in 2000

Eat a .

[Will Hunting]

At the least, there's no question we're at an unprecedented level of minority rule.

- 2 of the last 3 presidents got elected while losing the popular vote
- soon to be 5 of the 9 SCOTUS justices will have been nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
- Democrat senators have represented a majority of the population every year since the 2000 election, but Republicans have had a majority in the senate for 12 of those 20 years

You can justify it however you want or write it off as a non-issue because it's in the cons ution, but the undeniable reality is that what we currently have in this country is an increasingly small minority imposing its will on the majority because said minority happens to be concentrated in sparsely populated, overrepresented states.

[vy65]

At the least, there's no question we're at an unprecedented level of minority rule.

- 2 of the last 3 presidents got elected while losing the popular vote
- soon to be 5 of the 9 SCOTUS justices will have been nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
- Democrat senators have represented a majority of the population every year since the 2000 election, but Republicans have had a majority in the senate for 12 of those 20 years

You can justify it however you want or write it off as a non-issue because it's in the cons ution, but the undeniable reality is that what we currently have in this country is an increasingly small minority imposing its will on the majority because said minority happens to be concentrated in sparsely populated, overrepresented states.

It gets even worse when you consider tax bases

[Will Hunting]

It gets even worse when you consider tax bases

The largest states at the time (New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) ed up in a big way when they agreed to the 16th Amendment without modifying senate representation/the electoral college. That was really when this went from being a Republic of loosely affiliated states to one solidified nation with a federal government that holds most of the power.

Once the small states got the large states on the hook for being the ones that were responsible for the lionshare of federal income taxes without any increased senate representation, there was almost no leverage the large states had left to change that.

[vy65]

The largest states at the time (New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) ed up in a big way when they agreed to the 16th Amendment without modifying senate representation/the electoral college. That was really when this went from being a Republic of loosely affiliated states to one solidified nation with a federal government that holds most of the power.

Once the small states got the large states on the hook for being the ones that were responsible for the lionshare of federal income taxes without any increased senate representation, there was almost no leverage the large states had left to change that.

I guess the "don't tread on me crowd" forgot the "no taxation without representation" slogan from the good ole days

[DMC]

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as everything surrounding the election (the SC decision, the closeness of the deciding state combined with the closeness of the EC count) then it's fair to say it was unprecedented.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as the literal act of a President being elected in 2000, then no, it's not unprecedented.

There are elements that are unprecedented. Same with what you're referring to in your original point. Elements are unprecedented, but there have been justices nominated in election years.

Either way, precedent only matter in court cases. It doesn't matter in things like this. It's about like some color commentary about how no one has ever shot 21 FTs and had 14 assists in the 3rd game of the WCF.

[ElNono]

i dont get why you're so hung up on the semantics of what is or isn't unprecedented. depending on how broadly or narrowly you look at the cir stances, you can call it precedented or unprecedented, so it can get pretty subjective there anyway.

because yeah if the moral of the story is that the majority party of the senate can and will do whatever they they want within the edges of the confines of the cons utions, then fine. i mean technically if biden gets elected, republicans maintain control of the senate, and all 9 justices died in a big accident the day after inauguration, the senate can basically sit on all judicial nominations for the full 4 years and leave the court empty. is the importance there really whether or not it is precedented or unprecedented or whether or not its an unethical abuse of power?

Pretty much.

in a vacuum, is confirming a justice weeks before an election "wrong?" probably not

in a vacuum, was sitting on the garland nomination for 9 months (as opposed to holding confirmation hearings and voting against his confirmation) wrong? probably (they have a duty to advise and consent... cant advise without hearings), but there's at least a hint of grey

in its totality though? any gray or justifications disappear when the same senate (same leadership) completely tosses aside their proffered rationale for the latter under identical, if not further exacerbated cir stances (significantly closer to the election)

I don't think anybody should expect any kind of graciousness or political correctness from the cesspool that's Congress. If you are, then you need to lose your naiveté right now (not addressed directly to you, just saying in general).

[ElNono]

I agree it's not complicated, and it doesn't seem like it's that complicated with the Barrett thing either.

You're getting hung up on semantics because I guess you think I'm downplaying that RBG's screw up might have avoided this whole thing. I agree she should have stepped down, but it still seems fairly obvious that this is a SCOTUS confirmation unlike any in our history.

You can pick and choose things that are the same about it, but on the whole, it's unprecedented, end of discussion.

Like I told sr21 before, anybody expecting any kind of ethical civility or decorum when it comes to the current incarnation of Congress needs a dose of reality.

This was absolutely predictable if RGB died, and we knew this way before she actually passed away.

[spurraider21]

Like I told sr21 before, anybody expecting any kind of ethical civility or decorum when it comes to the current incarnation of Congress needs a dose of reality.

This was absolutely predictable if RGB died, and we knew this way before she actually passed away.

the predictability of it doesnt negate the outrage and disgust

[ElNono]

the predictability of it doesnt negate the outrage and disgust

Sure. Like I said, I'm not talking about feelings here.

[ducks]

Amy Coney Barrett’s 65-page response to Judiciary Committee questionnaire released
The questionnaire spans 65 pages and was issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee