US Politics: A Sinematic view on voting rights and the filibuster

[Mindwalker]

Shouldn't that bipartisan commission, the one that Biden has evaluate the Scotus/ courts situation, come to an end these days/weeks?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Another option to help with the court situation and the Senate in general is statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.  Obviously some hurdles there too.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Shouldn't that bipartisan commission, the one that Biden has evaluate the Scotus/ courts situation, come to an end these days/weeks?

Apparently they just had their second meeting:

Quote

The debate over Supreme Court reform continued Wednesday as a White House commission heard testimony on a broad range of reform proposals, including adding seats to the court, shrinking its influence, increasing its transparency, and limiting the tenure of the justices. The all-day hearing was the second meeting of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, a bipartisan, 36-member commission that Biden appointed in response to calls from some Democrats to expand the size of the court. The commission is tasked with studying potential reforms and submitting a report to the president this fall.

Don't think it really matters though.  Not like they're actually gonna be able to do anything about.  Can't see getting Manchin on board for any substantive reform.

[Zorral]

The Cancel Culture:

https://www.kwtx.com/2021/07/02/book-event-examining-slaverys-role-battle-alamo-canceled-after-texas-gop-leaders-complained-authors-say/

Quote

An event to promote a book examining the history of the Alamo and its connection to slavery was canceled just before it was slated to begin Thursday night after Texas Republicans mounted a pressure campaign against the museum hosting it. The Bullock Museum had scheduled a discussion of Forget the Alamo by historian Chris Tomlinson and two others. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wrote on Twitter, “As a member of the Preservation Board, I told staff to cancel this event as soon as I found out about it. . . .

 

[TrackerNeil]

12 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

How do you fix the Senate, short of a constitutional amendment? The majority sets the rules. 

When Democrats control the Senate, they make a rule that a nominee who gets no hearing is deemed confirmed after x days. Republicans will of course fight that in court, and possibly change the rule when they take the majority, but that's not something that can be prevented. When you have power, you do what you feel must be done and just hope it holds up. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

51 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

When Democrats control the Senate, they make a rule that a nominee who gets no hearing is deemed confirmed after x days. Republicans will of course fight that in court, and possibly change the rule when they take the majority, but that's not something that can be prevented. When you have power, you do what you feel must be done and just hope it holds up. 

Practically it wouldn't have made a difference. Garland was the one, who didn't get a hearing. If your rules were applied, then the GOP would'Ve given him a hearing, and voted him down for whatever reason.

Best solution would be term limits for SCOTUS. That'd take away a bit of the incentives of blocking any nominee for partisan reasons. With those life time appointments, you can reasonably hope that your appointment is still there in 20 or 30 years. So those seven appointments are all the more valuable and worth the partisan hackery.

[Kalbear]

15 SCOTUS seats, 18 year term limits and then they go to that 'senior' status. Every 2 years an appointment is made, with either filling a hole that was made vacant because of retirement or death or forcibly retiring the longest serving SCOTUS (until the 18 year thing is finished). Senate must take a vote within 90 days of nomination. POTUS gets two nominations. If after two nominations there is no selection, POTUS can select one of the seniors back to the court without any requirement on confirmation (as they are already confirmed). 

Go ahead and pick it apart

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Kal Corp said:

15 SCOTUS seats, 18 year term limits and then they go to that 'senior' status. Every 2 years an appointment is made, with either filling a hole that was made vacant because of retirement or death or forcibly retiring the longest serving SCOTUS (until the 18 year thing is finished). Senate must take a vote within 90 days of nomination. POTUS gets two nominations. If after two nominations there is no selection, POTUS can select one of the seniors back to the court without any requirement on confirmation (as they are already confirmed). 

Go ahead and pick it apart

I've supported the 18 year rule on a two year revolving basis for a while now, but I don't think you need to expand the SC if that's in place. Expanding the lower courts would need to be the priority then.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Personally, I would suggest a system that looks slightly different.

There are seven Supreme Court judges, so a term of seven years looks fine to me. So each year one judge leaves the bench and is replaced. If our resident lawyers feel that's bad for practical reasons, as in it gives to little time to for a court to decide a case, before splitting up the court. Fine make it nine. Just for the sake of the rhyme.

Further more, scotus nominees have to come from the senate (bi-partisan committee), with veto-power at the WH. The idea is, to wheat out extremely polarizing/partisan picks.

 

[DMC]

We can talk about reforms all day, but, once again, what is the merit of forcing the majority to vote a nominee down?  Does anybody think anyone that cares enough about SCOTUS nominees is going to change their vote choice because a majority party was forced to grant a nominee hearings and then reject them?  Because I don't.  I mean maybe it would have some marginal effect, but I think there are at least 100 more important issues to deal with.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

There are seven Supreme Court judges

There's nine.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

There's nine.

Ok, then it'S 9 for nine.

Why did I think of seven. I was probably thinking of Snowwhite and her seven dwarves.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok, then it'S 9 for nine.

Why did I think of seven.

 

[Week]

Some SCOTUS dataviz

https://twitter.com/jamesromoser/status/1411155309800873990

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

What is it, 70% of states need to sign on for a constitutional convention? It's about the only option we have.

You still need 100% of the State to sign on to change equal representation in the Senate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Another option to help with the court situation and the Senate in general is statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.  Obviously some hurdles there too.

That’s a political solution not a structural solution.  But a political solution that might facilitate the structural solution.  DC Statehood would illustrate, quite clearly the outsized power small (mostly rural Republican States) hold in the Senate to Trumpanistas.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You still need 100% of the State to sign on to change equal representation in the Senate.

So in essence, we need a dictator to change the fundamental imbalance of power. 

Great? 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You still need 100% of the State to sign on to change equal representation in the Senate.

Not really no.  An amendment should suffice.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not really no.  An amendment should suffice.

There's no difference. It's not happening unless the US becomes a one party state, and then at that point the rule of law will have been long gone.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not really no.  An amendment should suffice.

Really, yes.  US Const. Art V:

” and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

That means every State in the Union has the power to veto a change to equal representation in the US Senate.