Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[The Brain]

Sweden doesn't have a Constitutional Court. We don't need one, the Riksdag promised to be good.

That famous Swedish discipline, in force ever since Carolus Rex took power?

If you can't trust the government blindly, who can you trust?

[viper37]

Sweden doesn't have a Constitutional Court. We don't need one, the Riksdag promised to be good.

Swedish discipline at its best.  Wether it'd be attacking a Russian redoubt or a controversial bill, you can count on the Swedes to hold their ranks and push forward toward the ennemy.

[viper37]

Sweden doesn't have a Constitutional Court. We don't need one, the Riksdag promised to be good.

That famous Swedish discipline, in force ever since Carolus Rex took power?

If you can't trust the government blindly, who can you trust?

Obedience is virtue.

[grumbler]

So the nightmare scenario is now that they ram through a candidate worse than Kavanaugh, then Trump - losing the election - takes it to "his" Supreme Court and steals the presidency? That's not possible, is it?

The President cannot simply ask the USSC to overturn an election whose outcome he doesn't like.  He has to file a case, and John Roberts has been surprisingly resistant to Trumpism (surprising because Roberts is definitely in the "courts should protect money before they protect speech" camp).  Adding another justice won't change that.

[grumbler]

How did the Supreme Court become so political anyway? Has it always been like that?

The explicit linkage of Supreme Court nominations to political parties was made by Newt Gingrich as part of his Contract on America during the Bill Clinton presidency.  He courted the religious reich by promising to overturn Roe v Wade by attriting the non-reactionary wing of the Supreme Court if the RR could just give the republicans the presidency.   Democrats responded in kind (though they never had quite the mindless judicial nominees of the republicans) and the US was off on a race to the bottom.

[DGuller]

Ultimately no institution can survive if politics is viewed as a zero-sum game.  For whatever reasons, we live in the times when internal divisions trump any external threat, and thus all politics are zero-sum.

[Tonitrus]

Romney isn't staunch enough to have been pro-life when he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts.

Running for office and being a sitting USSC Justice with life tenure result in two completely different calculations on issues.

[Eddie Teach]

Sure. But that kind of flexibility isn't going to assure wavering voters.

[Admiral Yi]

Never ceases to annoy that the dems try their best to ow the pattern and keep the conservative /progressive balance but then the republicans just run over that.

  What in the world are you talking about?

[Eddie Teach]

How the Dems keep appointing non-communist, therefore moderate judges. 

[Josquius]

Why on earth would they appoint a communist judge?
Could you even find a communist judge in the US?

I recall when Obama was appointing he judges he made an effort to appoint moderates that would not upset the status quo and would get some republican support.
Trump.... Has not acted in such good faith.

[Eddie Teach]

Obama had a Republican Senate to deal with.

[garbon]

Ultimately no institution can survive if politics is viewed as a zero-sum game.  For whatever reasons, we live in the times when internal divisions trump any external threat, and thus all politics are zero-sum.

Well the Republicans do need to be destroyed root and branch.

[merithyn]

What about those who are fighting for their jobs? Like McSally, Gardner, and Tillis? Think any of them will flip because of the election?

EDIT: Thanks, Otto. I agree, but wanted another opinion.

I think Tillis just announce his colors, in a very (not) surprising way.

There isn't many republicans who will challenge Trump, especially if they fight tough battles.

McSally has said she'll confirm whomever is selected.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Supreme Court has always been extremely political--the Marshall court was very controversial and political because he was an extremely powerful Chief Justice, representing bedrock Federalist ideals, and his justiceship continued for actual decades past the collapse of his political faction and he thwarted several Democratic-Republican initiatives. The court was incredibly controversial from the 1850s-1880s, and again from the 1920s-1940s, and then again from basically 1955-Today.

There have been a few brief windows where, for historical/cultural reasons it has receded from prominence, but most people alive today have never seen those times.

What has tremendously changed is our process for selecting Supreme Court justices has become much more partisan. In times past for example it was broadly understood the President should only nominate someone who could relatively easily get confirmed in the Senate. Anything less than 65 votes was seen as a bit of a "bad pick." Some of this was cultural, and some of it was because of Senate rules--a really unpopular nominee would be very difficult to get through the Senate. Another aspect was there used to be the concept of a "blue slip", while its form varied significantly over its history, what it typically meant was a Senator from a state in which a judicial nominee resided, could basically put out a "blue slip" saying they disapproved of a judicial nominee, and the judiciary committee would basically immediately end consideration of that nominee. Both parties respected blue slips from the other party.

Additionally it used to be even if a judicial nominee was controversial in committee, even if the majority party could ram it through, they'd strongly consider pushing back. The thing was you could almost always find a judge of your "leaning" who could sail through the Senate with bipartisan approval, so the decision to try someone who was controversial was looked upon skeptically by many of the Senators of both parties. The whole culture around that changed immensely in the past 30-35 years and most of this stuff just doesn't exist anymore. No one cares about a nominee who only gets out of committee with a strict majority party vote, or gets confirmed with 51 votes in the full Senate.