The vote would be nothing more than lip service. The Republicans were morons for claiming that "the people should decide" based on the incoming President, but a vote would have had the exact same outcome as the outcome we got. You don't care about consistency. Consistency in this day and age is the President nominating a judge to fill a seat, and the Senate, if it's of the same party as the President, confirming that seat. Garland wasn't getting confirmed whether they voted or not because Democrats didn't control the Senate. ACB will get confirmed because R's do control the Senate. Consistency - if you control both, you get your nomination and confirmation.
because justices used to spend part of the year "riding circuits," hearing cases being appealed. This was for more than 100 years, starting from 1789.
There is a difference between claiming that they don't have the votes, and actually voting on it and showing the vote, during an election year. An election year, where there were tight Senate seat races. An election year, where the incumbent's party was expected to win. McConnell chose to maintain the Senate, in the face of a believed incoming Democrat president, than risk losing seats over a SCOTUS nomination that was believed to be moot. It turns out the other side won, but that doesn't mean the vote would have been "lip service." Do you believe that the Senate should keep a seat open for 4 years? 8? 12? How long, Indy? Because what you just said, what you said consistency is, after say I don't want consistency, is that the Senate should only confirm work submitted by its same party. Which means that a democrat President and a Republican Senate would forever keep a seat open. That's not consistency, that's idiocy. But that's just what you defined it as.
No, two seats for consistency, four seats to be a [penis]. See, someone can say that one direction is one thing, and another direction is another thing. It's called bifurcation. Bi-fur-ca-tion.
This has been answered above. But just to try again, I would do consistency. I would consider not being consistent. You might need to lookup the difference between "would" and "consider."
I don't think one could fairly add 4 seats without accommodating bipartisan selection of at least 1 of those seats. I have seen it suggested as such, which ultimately lead to a 7-6 conservative court and all that has been done is neutralize the gamesmanship of the past 5 years.
I don’t come at it as much from a perspective of consistency as I do balance. My opinion in 2016 was that of Obama did nominate someone, it needed to be someone that wouldn’t dramatically shift the balance of the court. Which I knew would be incredibly difficult since it was a Democrat nominating someone to replace Scalia. I believe you really want a 5-4 ideological court with maybe 1 or 2 justices that act as swing votes. That hasn’t changed for me. And I view the ACB nomination as a stark shift in the balance of the court, which concerns me. I am reluctant to support this expansion of the court because I feel it further weaponoxes it. But I am also very concerned about what a 6-3 ideological court of any persuasion means.
By "used to," I take it they don't do it anymore? and by the timeline you provided, they haven't done it since roughly 1900? Are you suggesting they should start "riding circuits" again? If not, why would we add those seats to the court?
What decisions have come down from a conservative majority court that you find problematic or feel haven't properly interpreted the Constitution?
I don't think it weaponizes the court, so much as shows that it can be done. Which would be a healthy check on runamock senate majority leaders, and the courts themselves, which have for too long seen themselves as immutable.
I do think they should, but the reason I would suggest adding seats is primarily to preserve the legitimacy of the court, which is greatly damaged. you can argue that it isn't, but would be true only to you and those who believe the shenanigans of the past 5 years are fair. but if those shenanigans are fair, so is adding seats as that is a power perfectly spelled out. One can not claim holding back Obama's nominee was not political if pushing through this nominee is not political. it doesn't work. therefore, a remedy is necessary to correct that politicalization. a third reason would be to make "5-4" type rulings (or 6-3 ruling on a 6-3 court) less likely and increase confidence in rulings being ultimately nonpartisan. by adding more seats but keeping the court balanced, you are more likely to get rulings with different configurations of decisions and hopefully by larger than 1 margins.
We are really just getting there. But if you look at cases like Obergefell, which I supported - that would not have been ruled the same with the upcoming 6-3 court.
That wouldn't happen, though, because the American people would see that Senate keeping the seat open forever and say "Stop being a [uck fay]ing asshole" and vote that Senate out of power. The Senate is still beholden to the people. The people can get behind the idea of waiting a number of months to let the new President nominate. But forever? Yeah right. Again, the expectation, in the first place, was that Hillary was going to win. Are you trying to claim the McConnell would have prevented Hillary from filling the seat, had she been elected? I find that highly doubtful. The American people wouldn't allow that sort of behavior. The vote would have had the same outcome as the lack of a vote. Garland isn't getting confirmed either way.
I don't believe the shenanigans and this back and forth just started in the last 5 years. The last 5 years are a response to what came before. I agree that all of this shit is politicized, but the idea that it's just McConnell and the R's causing it is ridiculous. But we could probably argue for days about where it all started. It makes more sense to talk about solving/stopping it. I don't think Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are as right leaning as people want us to believe.
Allowing it to occur for any period of time is the same as saying it can occur forever, because forever is built from the basic object of one little time. So arguing that it should be done by the Senate, even once, is arguing that it can be done, forever. The outcome is not the measure of consistency. Do you have SOPs at your work? Procedures you follow? Do you know why? Consistency. The outcome can be different, but the process is consistent. No, I'm saying that McConnell believed that he was sitting a Democrat nominated SCOTUS nominee regardless, so it was moot when he did it. So in order to preserve his Senate majority, and not have tight races have to explain why they voted one way or another, on this issue, he just didn't hold a vote. Which is inconsistent with the process. No, the vote would have established a historical record of how people voted. Which is a fundamental difference from a no vote, ergo, it wouldn't be the same outcome.
