Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[grumbler]

Agree with a lot of this.

Of course the other point on 2008 is that he chose Sarah Palin who is arguably key in unlocking a lot of where the Republicans are now. I imagine that was a cause of regret for McCain, but arguably it's a big part of his legacy. The things that he disliked his party becoming were partly caused by a decision he made - and one based on his character flaws, from everything I've read he didn't do much research, he liked the sound of her and he went with his gut (things that, in other context, people liked about him).

there ws also a lot of pressure in her favor from the party and his advisors.  But it was a blunder, for sure.

[Berkut]

The work of the Supreme Court involves a lot more than deciding abortion cases, it decides other matters of great consequence.  The right's obsession with overturning Roe has had significant and malign impact on the Court.  For a while it means finding justices who not only strongly believe Roe was wrongfully decided but are willing to break with decades of established and elaborated precedent.  It means finding someone who is hardline and ideological and activist, because a regular small "c" conservative judge like Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy or Roberts won't do that. And that means packing the Court with hardline activist, right wing ideologues who are right wing ideologues on everything from speech rights to religion and state to guns.

And what you get when you do that is a Court that will say that states have the right to force women to carry all pregnancies to term even if it literally kills them, but will also rule that the same states are helpless to prevent corporations funneling millions in bribes to politicians or from preventing everyone from carrying AR-15s onto a crowded subway.

That is such a great point. I am definitely stealing it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

100% agree with AR that McCain was always going to lose 2008. I don't believe there's a Republican alive today or then that could have beaten Obama in 2008, they were running into the proverbial buzzsaw. Obama was also a once in a generation campaigner and 2008 was the best campaign he ever ran--all the way from systematically dismantling the party apparatus built to anoint Hillary up through more or less rolling McCain like a world champion prizefighter fighting a ham and egger local guy.

Palin also only was really bad in hindsight. Like at the time she was selected she was seen as a real rising star, she was really well liked in Alaska, people broadly felt she was doing a good job up there. The GOP of that era was really desperate to try to be something other than the "old white" party, and she checked a lot of those boxes. Another thing about Alaska is it's the literal hinterland, so I think a lot of it was she had never been scrutinized much by the national party or the press. McCain probably assumed that someone who got through the Republican primary process and such for a statewide office like Governor wasn't an actual mental invalid, and I actually think even the first week or so of Palin being picked most considered it a good move for McCain. But then she started coming more into focus and it was quite obviously a bad pick.

[Sheilbh]

Oh yeah - I'm not arguing that Palin cost McCain the election, or that that matters. And for the first few weeks she was a terrific pick - engaging, charismatic etc. She turned out as a hindrance for McCain. But every gaffe she made and every time the media pointed out her ignorance and us, here, recoiled, her crowds kept turning out and cheering her as she doubled down. Remind you of anyone

[Berkut]

I guess the GOP has the votes then.

In a scenario where the Dems win the WH and a majority in the Senate, I hope they pack the court. It's no use trying to find common ground with an arsonist.

I dunno - court-packing is pretty dangerous as it can be used the next time the GOP is in power.

That is actually not even true.

You have to pass laws to do that. Which means you have to

1. Control the Senate
2. Control the House
3. Control the Presidency

That doesn't happen THAT often.

Further, you also have to have some kind of reasonable excuse for doing so - this is still a political process. Right now, there is enough outrage at how unpresentative the SC is with America, and enough people pissed off at the GOP just taking a shit all over any kind of norms and basic ethical governing that there is political will to reform what nearly everyone sees as a badly broken system.

If the Dems replace is with something like the Buttigeig plan, something that most reasonable, moderate people see as not a way to yank the court from a right wing disaster to a left wing disaster, but rather a way to make the court actually represent what most moderate, sober people actually think the court SHOULD represent, then there won't be the political will to change it again except among the most radicals.

There is a will right now to fix it because only the crazy right wingers think it isn't broken. If they fix it so that only the crazy right wingers think it is broken, then it will not be easy to re-break it legislatively. Which is why it wasn't legislation that broke it to begin with.

[Berkut]

What the fuck is he talking about? Since the Conservatives screwed LBJ out of the Chief Justice Appointment in 1968 the Democrats have appointed four total justices since 1968, 52 fucking years. In what way are we used to having our partisans stack the court?

I swear they will just come up with whatever bullshit they can pull out of their ass to justify their actions.

In the same way the main stream media is completely left wing partisan.

If you define your tribe as right wing, and everyone NOT your tribe "left wing" then in fact, yes, the media by and large is left wing.

ALl you have to do is reject the idea that there is anyone not as partisan as you - that means that unless you are Fox News, you MUST be MSNBC, since those are the only possible options.

The SC is "liberal" because it isn't completely right wingers who don't actually care about the law.

[alfred russel]

I'm fascinated by how these two sentiments sit next to each other

I see the incongruity, but that is the way the game has been played for more than a century. A candidate picks a VP that will balance the ticket--ideologically and/or geographically in most instances. McCain went for ideology and, more progressively, gender. That is superficial--but in a way that politics had always been superficial.

The candidate often doesn't closely know the VP he chooses and is dependent on third party reports. Half the function of a state party is to make sure the candidates aren't total shit. A party is supposed to shut people like Sarah Palin down, and at the very least raise an alarm. To use your analogy, a barbarian took over Alaska, and McCain was probably ignorant that was even a possibility.

I think you're right. The difference pre-Palin the barbarians were at the gate, after Palin they're inside. There is a difference between a conservative media nonsense teller and the party itself, especially your nominee for one of the two nationally elected roles. We are living Palin's style of politics still.

I always remember the difference between McCain who was confronted with racists saying Obama wasn't a real American and taking the mic off them and saying that it wasn't true, they disagreed but Obama was a good family man and he was a good American trying to win office. Then you had Palin who I think was running a dog whistle campaign "Obama is not a man who sees America the way you and I do" was one line I always remember. For what it's worth I don't think that was deliberate on the part of the McCain campaign, but the crowds started responding to Palin more and she started playing it up more, as you say into the conservative media echo chamber. I think Palin finds an enthusiastic group of voters who I don't think were necessarily a core part of the Republic electorate (as opposed to consumers of conservative media) and who I don't think necessarily turn out for Romney.

The crowds cheering Palin are the crowds packing out Trump rallies is why I think it's a key inflection point even if maybe there are bigger structural points and we end up here anyway. But I'm genuinely not sure if we do if it's McCain-Liberman/Romney/Ridge/Pawlentey.

Palin didn't become VP, resigned as governor, and is now doing reality TV. She didn't take over. The crowds cheering Palin and Trump have a lot of the same people, but they weren't passed from Palin to Trump as an inheritance. There is apparently a decisive block in a lot of Republican primaries that values ignorance as a virtue. Palin didn't create that block. It just paid her $25 each to see her speaking tour. Trump got them to elect him president. A lot of establishment republicans are now pandering to them, and a few new politicians have gotten elected following Trump's lead.

[alfred russel]

Are Democrats really talking about packing the court?

I don't know about talking, but if they're not planning to pack the court, they have no business being in politics.  Not packing the court in 2021 would be like issuing another diplomatic protest in September 1939.

Thinking about this, the court won't get packed. Joe Manchin announced he will not support a packing scheme. That means the democrats need to get to 51 senators to have a chance. To flip the senate you need candidates currently running in places like Montana and North Carolina. Those candidates are going to be under a lot of pressure to promise not to vote to pack the court. You also have senators in places like Indiana and North Dakota. It seems unlikely there won't be more defectors, and if the democrats need to get to 53+ senators it just doesn't seem likely until at least 2022.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Joe Manchin may not be the swing vote. But I also don't think the Dems should try to immediately pack the court--I also think that unless Biden changes his very public rhetoric on the topic, it's extremely unlikely.

I think court packing is probably at its most likely point basically since the last time we actually modified the court's composition for specific partisan reasons, but I also think it will still need another volley of delegitimization for this to occur. For example the 6-3 Trump court ruling in a way that is broadly seen as partisan and illegitimate, by most moderate legal minds and by a significant majority of the Democratic party. I suspect that on some level John Roberts recognizes this to be true. I think if the court quashed the ACA in its entirety for example, even Joe Manchin would vote to pack the court. The ACA is responsible for the healthcare of 20m Americans, if the court so breaks with precedent to immediately imperil that many American's healthcare in the midst of a pandemic, Manchin would be an easy vote to pack the court--he represents one of the poorest states in the country and one of the few red states that has passed Medicaid expansion (which would be instantly ended if they fulfilled Republican dreams and did a blanket repeal of the entire law.) A scenario where Joe Biden sits in the White House and Charles Schumer is Senate Majority leader, and they stand for the court behaving in this fashion, does not exist.

However barring a catastrophic and manifestly partisan and illegitimate ruling, I don't think the Dems actually need to engage in a partisan court pack, and I think there's good reasons not to do so. The Dems have an obligation, in my opinion, to prioritize policies that will limit the ability of the authoritarian GOP to continually run the country in a way in which only the angriest and most unreasonable subset of their minority party, gets to express its views in legislation and policy. I believe there are ways to do that which are consistent with both the text and goals of our constitution, and our national principles. Court packing simply because Trump gets to 6-3, is not quite there, but it could be justified if the court does something really unhinged.

[DGuller]

Are Democrats really talking about packing the court?

I don't know about talking, but if they're not planning to pack the court, they have no business being in politics.  Not packing the court in 2021 would be like issuing another diplomatic protest in September 1939.

Thinking about this, the court won't get packed. Joe Manchin announced he will not support a packing scheme. That means the democrats need to get to 51 senators to have a chance. To flip the senate you need candidates currently running in places like Montana and North Carolina. Those candidates are going to be under a lot of pressure to promise not to vote to pack the court. You also have senators in places like Indiana and North Dakota. It seems unlikely there won't be more defectors, and if the democrats need to get to 53+ senators it just doesn't seem likely until at least 2022.

Democrats really are the Republicans in this iteration of the Spanish Civil War, aren't we? 

[Caliga]

Of course the other point on 2008 is that he chose Sarah Palin who is arguably key in unlocking a lot of where the Republicans are now. I imagine that was a cause of regret for McCain, but arguably it's a big part of his legacy. The things that he disliked his party becoming were partly caused by a decision he made - and one based on his character flaws, from everything I've read he didn't do much research, he liked the sound of her and he went with his gut (things that, in other context, people liked about him).

I thought in 2008, the story was that his gut told him to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but his advisors talked him out of it because it would have been such a controversial pick.

[Sheilbh]

I see the incongruity, but that is the way the game has been played for more than a century. A candidate picks a VP that will balance the ticket--ideologically and/or geographically in most instances. McCain went for ideology and, more progressively, gender. That is superficial--but in a way that politics had always been superficial.

I always remember - and I could be wrong - that Palin was announced the day after Obama clinched the nomination. So I think it was the day after Clinton conceded. So part of it I think was a desire to get attention back on McCain after the long primary (I always thought the long primary helped the Democrats because it basically sucked the oxygen from McCain's campaign). If he announced, say, Ridge or Romney that would still be the third story on the news. Lieberman or Palin make McCain the story again and he went for Palin.

The candidate often doesn't closely know the VP he chooses and is dependent on third party reports. Half the function of a state party is to make sure the candidates aren't total shit. A party is supposed to shut people like Sarah Palin down, and at the very least raise an alarm. To use your analogy, a barbarian took over Alaska, and McCain was probably ignorant that was even a possibility.

Sure but I think it was a character trait of McCain that was flaw and something people liked about him that he was a risk-taker. So I remember reading about Obama personally interviewing all of the nominees multiple times and there being a very prolonged, kind of agonised decision-making process. McCain took a risk. It worked for a few weeks and then it failed.

Palin didn't become VP, resigned as governor, and is now doing reality TV. She didn't take over. The crowds cheering Palin and Trump have a lot of the same people, but they weren't passed from Palin to Trump as an inheritance. There is apparently a decisive block in a lot of Republican primaries that values ignorance as a virtue. Palin didn't create that block. It just paid her $25 each to see her speaking tour. Trump got them to elect him president. A lot of establishment republicans are now pandering to them, and a few new politicians have gotten elected following Trump's lead.

Yeah - I don't really understand what you think I'm saying about Palin because I more or less agree with all of that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've heard rumors to that effect and it wouldn't shock me, McCain and Lieberman always liked each other. But I think Lieberman may have even been a worse pick (politically) than Palin, McCain actually did need someone to help him with the more extreme elements of the party, which Palin ostensibly did. A McCain-Lieberman ticket I think would've had serious issues with the Republican base, because you already had a portion of the GOP base that wasn't entirely enthusiastic for McCain (remember a lot of them supporting figures like Huckabee and Santorum in the 2008 primaries, long after their viable path to a delegate majority was gone), and then he goes and nominates a former Democrat / independent Senator who was previously the running mate of Al Gore.

Lieberman also oddly for a bipartisan type person, was deeply unpopular with Democrats by the time 2008 rolled around, so not only would McCain risk alienating some of his own voting base with that pick, he likely wouldn't have materially changed his standing with the Democrats. To them, Lieberman's willingness to be on a Republican Presidential ticket 8 years after appearing on the Democratic Presidential ticket would be broader confirmation he was a DINO that isn't to be trusted.

[Sheilbh]

I've heard rumors to that effect and it wouldn't shock me, McCain and Lieberman always liked each other. But I think Lieberman may have even been a worse pick (politically) than Palin, McCain actually did need someone to help him with the more extreme elements of the party, which Palin ostensibly did. A McCain-Lieberman ticket I think would've had serious issues with the Republican base, because you already had a portion of the GOP base that wasn't entirely enthusiastic for McCain (remember a lot of them supporting figures like Huckabee and Santorum in the 2008 primaries, long after their viable path to a delegate majority was gone), and then he goes and nominates a former Democrat / independent Senator who was previously the running mate of Al Gore.

Lieberman also oddly for a bipartisan type person, was deeply unpopular with Democrats by the time 2008 rolled around, so not only would McCain risk alienating some of his own voting base with that pick, he likely wouldn't have materially changed his standing with the Democrats. To them, Lieberman's willingness to be on a Republican Presidential ticket 8 years after appearing on the Democratic Presidential ticket would be broader confirmation he was a DINO that isn't to be trusted.

I totally agree. She was a choice that made a lot of sense and that worked for a short period of time. But as I say I just wonder if Republican politics develop in the same way after a McCain-Lieberman/Romney/Ridge/Pawlentey ticket.

I'm not saying it was a bad decision especially in its immediate circumstances, I just think it had long-term consequences in empowering the wing of the party and the attitude that I think McCain came to really dislike. It's sort of an irony/tragedy of his late career.

[garbon]

I've heard rumors to that effect and it wouldn't shock me, McCain and Lieberman always liked each other. But I think Lieberman may have even been a worse pick (politically) than Palin, McCain actually did need someone to help him with the more extreme elements of the party, which Palin ostensibly did. A McCain-Lieberman ticket I think would've had serious issues with the Republican base, because you already had a portion of the GOP base that wasn't entirely enthusiastic for McCain (remember a lot of them supporting figures like Huckabee and Santorum in the 2008 primaries, long after their viable path to a delegate majority was gone), and then he goes and nominates a former Democrat / independent Senator who was previously the running mate of Al Gore.

Lieberman also oddly for a bipartisan type person, was deeply unpopular with Democrats by the time 2008 rolled around, so not only would McCain risk alienating some of his own voting base with that pick, he likely wouldn't have materially changed his standing with the Democrats. To them, Lieberman's willingness to be on a Republican Presidential ticket 8 years after appearing on the Democratic Presidential ticket would be broader confirmation he was a DINO that isn't to be trusted.

I totally agree. She was a choice that made a lot of sense and that worked for a short period of time. But as I say I just wonder if Republican politics develop in the same way after a McCain-Lieberman/Romney/Ridge/Pawlentey ticket.

I'm not saying it was a bad decision especially in its immediate circumstances, I just think it had long-term consequences in empowering the wing of the party and the attitude that I think McCain came to really dislike. It's sort of an irony/tragedy of his late career.

I think that's putting credit where it isn't due. I feel like the Tea Party movement and its crazies would have come to the fore even if McCain had picked a different running mate.