One part intuition, one part chess game.
I'll start with intuition: Last night when the news broke that she was confirmed, I felt heavy, but that went away quickly. I don't know if it's because we knew it was a forgone conclusion or what, but a sense of "It'll be okay, just hold on" took over me.
And the reason I didn't sleep last night was because I played chess with some outcomes in my mind. To be good in politics you have to be good at chess. I do not think Biden is going to expand the court -- if the ACA, even after almost a year in draft, debate, and revision was political suicide for the Democratic control of the senate in 2010, this is an even hotter potato. Biden may see himself as a transitional president, but he really has only two years to make a transition that proves to Americans that we're on the path we need to be on. If there's a big enough misstep he loses the senate in 2022.
I do think we'll see some constitutional amendments come out of this. I think most of American can get behind another amendment that overrules parts of Article II -- most particularly, the electoral college system. When people point to land maps of the US being mostly red with small pockets of blue, I tend to laugh -- in it's simplest form -- land does not vote. We've had two presidential elections in 20 years where the popular vote holder didn't win.
Judicial reform is a second one I think most Americans can get behind. Throughout history we've removed tons of judges from office so that part works, but the lifetime appointment piece is wrong at multiple levels. I could also see a scheme where the number of justices is directly tied to federal districts (which again, goes to population -- it would act a lot like how the house is structured on some levels.) This COULD expand the court (I think right now that would take us to 13) but sets a limit on the party of the day from using that as a threat in the future. That last part is a tougher sell but again, not out of the realm of reason, especially if it went into effect after the next election.
And finally, this is one someone else would have to weigh in on -- but, a constitutional amendment that overturns the Citizens United decision is something I think we can all agree on. We've absolutely seen in this election that Democrats have learned to operate under it's auspices. Just look at the money going in to Amy McGrath, Jamie Harrison, etc. Lots of small donors which is fine, but there's some big money back there too. Regardless of who it's working for the intent was for the will of the people to be ignored.
That last one may need to come before any of the others -- I don't want a repeat of 2008, just to live through 2010 and the subsequent years it took for Democrats to regain some semblance of control.
Here's hoping the intuition part is right. Who knows on the chess game I played.
Hi all - I agree with everyone here that this woman has had TERRIBLE cards. The one thing that cards are not as good at (at least for me) is time - so even though many of us felt that she wouldn't get in - this must mean that her tenure is very rocky and as many have noted, she will be marginalized. I've also heard rumblings that the dark money that is backing her will come to light (Sheldon Whitehouse alluded to this).
@writerjenny It needs to be three appointments to out number the conservative cabal.
@writerjenny It needs to be three appointments to out number the conservative cabal.
Not only that, but the 3 appointments must be replacements of conservative justices!
Moscow Mitch said he thinks ACB will be a "political asset" for rethug candidates. So there he is flat-out admitting that she was installed not to uphold the law, but to advance the thug agenda.
I hope Dems remember everything the thugs are saying right now, and not lose their spines, or cave to thug whining about fairness and civility. I've said it for years; thugs only care about those things when they don't hold power. You NEVER EVER fight fair with opponents who don't.
I am praying for a blue sweep of incredible magnitude. It has to be so. He is planning to steal the election through SCOTUS.
@barbarmar22 I saw two. The Knight of Pentacles- a younger man, hard working, kind, good energy, and the High Priestess- older, regal- she'll remind us of RBG. It'll return us to a balanced court, 4 liberal, 4 conservative, and a swing vote.
I'm concerned about the damage the Court can do in the meantime, but this is ultimately going to blow up in the GOP's face.
I wonder, too-when it comes out that T. colluded with foreign powers to steal 2016-how in the world can the judicial appointments of an illegitimate traitor president stand?
Could that tie in somehow to what you are seeing?
It could be because I have thrown cards for Amy many times, and they are always horrible. Or maybe it's proven she lied during the hearings, like Kavannaugh.
I disagree. I think Biden and the Democrats would be wise to add two more justices to the Supreme Court, not three. First, Democrats can logically argue that the Republicans stole two seats (Gorsuch and Barnette). But if you add three seats, Democrats would look petty and it would mean that Republicans would have justification to add seats if they ever got power again. Second, if you add two more justices, you force Roberts to be the swing judge (which he secretly likes to do anyway, as he relishes the power it gives him as well as ensure that the court won't become too politicized). Third, we have several justices such as Beyer (liberal) and Thomas (conservative) who are rather old (82 and 72, respectively). If they resign in the next few years (particularly Thomas), you can fill that seat with a liberal judge and do it in such a way that Republicans, due to their actions over the last few years, would be powerless to protest.
In short, I think Democrats should stack the court but only add two because they can honestly justify the need for two (their seats were stolen because Republicans played a double standard). That way, the Republicans are punished for failing to follow the Golden Rule (treat others as you want yourself to be treated), the balance of power is balanced in such a way that forces Roberts to vote with Democratic policies or face the prospect that more seats are added and he would loose all power, and getting two seats now could mean we add seats later if Republicans continue to disrupt the Government. Basically, we are telling Republicans "You stole two seats, so we are taking them back. But if you continue to disrupt the Government, then we will add even more seats."
It is just my opinion, of course. We have a lot of independent voters out there that I think would be ok with adding two seats after what the Republicans did, but would turn on Democrats if they added more than that.