ACB Hearings

[bae]

I agree 1000%. But the reality is that we have to deal with the republicans we have, not the republicans we wish we had. Personally I’d be fine with something other than adding justices, such as term limits for justices.

I think we should establish mandatory retirement ages for lots of positions. President, Senator, Congressman, judges of all sorts.

Mandatory retirement age for air traffic controller is 56 years. I'd be OK with that as a starting point. And I'm a bit north of that age.

[jp1]

I don't know, that was a Democratic majority Senate.

Good deflection. It completely misses the point but slow clap slow clap slow clap...

[Alan]

Good deflection. It completely misses the point but slow clap slow clap slow clap...

It's not a deflection, I honestly don't know how many judges made it through the system with bipartisan support or how many were blocked by Republicans. I do know that Reid used the power of the majority to make it easier to get what he wanted by changing the rules to require a simple majority only for Federal Judge appointments. I also recall that he was warned by Republicans that his actions would come back to bite him in the butt. It's obvious that neither party is above using their majority status to achieve short term results regardless of long term consequences. You can rage at Republicans if you want but you can't just close your eyes to the Democrats equal lust for power.

[LDAHL]

I think we should establish mandatory retirement ages for lots of positions. President, Senator, Congressman, judges of all sorts.

Mandatory retirement age for air traffic controller is 56 years. I'd be OK with that as a starting point. And I'm a bit north of that age.

Since so many people insist that the court must function as a legislature of last resort, seeking desired outcomes rather than ensuring constitutional consistency, and looking at the quality of the advise and consent function since Bork, I am prepared to surrender to the idea of term limits.

If we stagger 18 year terms so that a new appointment comes up every two years, then the rabidly political view of the court won’t view each one as pivotal to the advance of their agenda. The level of gamesmanship, hypocrisy and hysteria would be reduced if over time the composition of the court came to be a sort of lagging reflection of election results.

[jp1]

It's not a deflection, I honestly don't know how many judges made it through the system with bipartisan support or how many were blocked by Republicans. I do know that Reid used the power of the majority to make it easier to get what he wanted by changing the rules to require a simple majority only for Federal Judge appointments. I also recall that he was warned by Republicans that his actions would come back to bite him in the butt. It's obvious that neither party is above using their majority status to achieve short term results regardless of long term consequences. You can rage at Republicans if you want but you can't just close your eyes to the Democrats equal lust for power.

In the entire history of the nation through Obama’s presidency 168 judicial nominees were denied by cloture motions. 82 of those (just under half) happened during Obama’s presidency. So no, your both sideserism doesn’t hold water.

[Alan]

In the entire history of the nation through Obama’s presidency 168 judicial nominees were denied by cloture motions. 82 of those (just under half) happened during Obama’s presidency.

Thanks for that interesting bit of info, I enjoyed that so much it caused me to do a little looking up myself. Imagine my surprise to find that there were 2 Supreme Court Justices and 377 other Federal Judges appointed and confirmed by the Senate during those years, with a good deal of them confirmed through Unanimous Consent in the Senate. I wonder what made those 82 questionable?

[jp1]

Good question but you’d probably have to ask Mitch McConnell. Pretty much everyone else admitted that Merrick garland was more than well qualified.

[jp1]

Well, now that Amy covid Barrett has been confirmed just 8 Short days before the election it will be interesting to see how that plays out over the next few months.

[Teacher Terry]

It’s such a sad day for so many people especially women.

[iris lilies]

It’s such a sad day for so many people especially women.

oh please. There is so much projection about this competent young(ish) woman and the evil she will bring.

I just dont see it.

The ACA case will ( ?) turn on the sticky wicket of the bugabear mandatory purchase issue. At least, from the skim reading i’ve done, that seems to be the point of law being argued. You have to do some mighty mental gymnastics to find a Handmaid’s Tale in that point of law.