What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[dps]

Delay is the word of either opposing party now.  We no longer have a government that really functions.

There's a reason Trump got to appoint a record number of judges, and it wasn't because Obama wasn't nominating them.

Exactly. The Republicans were assholes and fucked with the Democrats and behold the rich bounty of rewards they have received. If they had acted in good faith they would have been in far worse of a position. Hence the dysfunctional system.

Democrats arguably started it with Bork.

I'd agree with that, but with a qualification.  The Democrats rejected Bork for ideological reasons (he was pretty much the first nominee in living memory rejected on that basis--a couple of Nixon's nominees failed to be confirmed, but one of them wasn't clearly qualified and the other one turned out to be a pedophile IIRC--apologies to both men if my memory is incorrect on that last bit), but the Republicans rejected (or more accurately, refused to consider) Obama's nominee for partisan reasons.  There's a lot of overlap between ideological reasons and partisan reasons, of course, but they're not exactly identical.

We're in a bad place right now.  The idea that the Supreme Court is non-political is somewhat a romanticized view, but having appointments so highly fought over along partisan lines doesn't really do anyone any good in the long run.  All it really does is diminish the Court and make Washington politics even more petty and bitter.  I don't have a good suggestion about how we can get past this;  I suppose that a better class of nominee for Congree (by both parties) would help, but I don't see that happening, and certainly I see no legal or structural changes that could bring it about.  I do think that DGuller's suggestion to address the problem by emasculating the power of the Court is a bad one, though.

[bogh]

Dunno.  What was the fake stuff?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaughs-fact-check.html

[Admiral Yi]

So the foreclosure thing has some meat.

[Barrister]

Delay is the word of either opposing party now.  We no longer have a government that really functions.

There's a reason Trump got to appoint a record number of judges, and it wasn't because Obama wasn't nominating them.

Exactly. The Republicans were assholes and fucked with the Democrats and behold the rich bounty of rewards they have received. If they had acted in good faith they would have been in far worse of a position. Hence the dysfunctional system.

Democrats arguably started it with Bork.

I'd agree with that, but with a qualification.  The Democrats rejected Bork for ideological reasons (he was pretty much the first nominee in living memory rejected on that basis--a couple of Nixon's nominees failed to be confirmed, but one of them wasn't clearly qualified and the other one turned out to be a pedophile IIRC--apologies to both men if my memory is incorrect on that last bit), but the Republicans rejected (or more accurately, refused to consider) Obama's nominee for partisan reasons.  There's a lot of overlap between ideological reasons and partisan reasons, of course, but they're not exactly identical.

We're in a bad place right now.  The idea that the Supreme Court is non-political is somewhat a romanticized view, but having appointments so highly fought over along partisan lines doesn't really do anyone any good in the long run.  All it really does is diminish the Court and make Washington politics even more petty and bitter.  I don't have a good suggestion about how we can get past this;  I suppose that a better class of nominee for Congree (by both parties) would help, but I don't see that happening, and certainly I see no legal or structural changes that could bring it about.  I do think that DGuller's suggestion to address the problem by emasculating the power of the Court is a bad one, though.

In part I think it's the fault of the court itself by inserting itself into some hot-button issues.

Let's say you're a really committed pro-life voter.  The one and only means you have of trying to implement restrictions on abortion is by influencing who gets on the USSC.  Similarly on the left: if you're concerned about money in politics you have to try and get justice who will overturn Citizens United.

All of those issues should have been left up to Congress and the states to work out.

[Barrister]

So the foreclosure thing has some meat.

Did you read the link?  Kavanaugh dismissed the foreclosure application.

[Admiral Yi]

Did you read the link?  Kavanaugh dismissed the foreclosure application.

Did you?  She dismissed after they had settled.

[Syt]

NY Times: Evangelical Leaders Are Frustrated at G.O.P. Caution on Kavanaugh Allegation

[The Minsky Moment]

The Democrats rejected Bork for ideological reasons

Dems never forgave Bork for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, that was a big issue.

Also the ideological extreme of Bork's positions can't be understated.  He believed that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional.  You can understand why the NAACP might draw a line in the sand with him.

[dps]

All of those issues should have been left up to Congress and the states to work out.

The Court "inserted" itself into hot button issues before--Brown vs Board of Education, anyone?--without appointments becoming overly politicized.  And if you're a Justice, and an issue come up that you truly think involves constitutional issues, you have a duty to address it--I'm not sure that I'd categorize it as "inserting" the Court into the issue.

[Valmy]

Yeah I agree all that started with Brown...or at least that Brown was a watershed moment. The States abusing their authority to disenfranchising and oppressing citizens eventually led to the Supreme Court having to intervene and established that role for the Court. And any claim that the USSC should just leave it to the States and the Legislature always have to somehow explain away that instance and why that precedent does not apply elsewhere.

[crazy canuck]

All of those issues should have been left up to Congress and the states to work out.

The Court "inserted" itself into hot button issues before--Brown vs Board of Education, anyone?--without appointments becoming overly politicized.  And if you're a Justice, and an issue come up that you truly think involves constitutional issues, you have a duty to address it--I'm not sure that I'd categorize it as "inserting" the Court into the issue.

I agree.  It would be remarkable if a majority of the court decided "you know what, we know it is our constitutional obligation to rule on this matter, but it is too hot to handle.  Back to you legislative branch. " BB's argument has more merit in a Parliamentary democracy but the safeguard we have created for that in Canada is the Notwithstanding Clause and so it is really a non issue - at least for Charter decisions.

[OttoVonBismarck]

for ruining her life-- yes, she's opening herself up to a lot of ire from the right, but she's also a Democrat hero now.  People have made up false allegations for far less gain.

I should note at this point that I'm not saying she's lying.  I have no idea.  There's very little to go on to prove her accusation, yet also very little to exonerate Kavanaugh.

It's a shame you've not been raped.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In part I think it's the fault of the court itself by inserting itself into some hot-button issues.

Let's say you're a really committed pro-life voter.  The one and only means you have of trying to implement restrictions on abortion is by influencing who gets on the USSC.  Similarly on the left: if you're concerned about money in politics you have to try and get justice who will overturn Citizens United.

All of those issues should have been left up to Congress and the states to work out.

SCOTUS could have and should have left abortion law up to the states.

Citizens United would be hard since it concerns First Amendment claims, which the court has an obligation to address.

[Solmyr]

Donald continies to insist on having a military parade celebrating him, though 

He will cross the Potomac and have a triumph at the head of his legions.

[derspiess]

for ruining her life-- yes, she's opening herself up to a lot of ire from the right, but she's also a Democrat hero now.  People have made up false allegations for far less gain.

I should note at this point that I'm not saying she's lying.  I have no idea.  There's very little to go on to prove her accusation, yet also very little to exonerate Kavanaugh.

It's a shame you've not been raped.

That's not a very nice thing to say.