A Dangerous Moment for the Court

[catbyte]

And the country.

6:00 AM ET
Mary Ziegler

The Supreme Court seems strangely immune to the bitterness that plagues our politics. Even now, when Americans can no longer agree on basic facts, the Court’s relative popularity has endured. Following Donald Trump’s 2016 election, the Court has what may be its most conservative majority in decades. And yet this August, the Supreme Court recorded its highest approval rating since 2009.

But there are so many ways that the current moment could turn out very badly for the Court. First off, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems ready to test just how much damage the Court’s institutional integrity can take. In 2016, McConnell refused to hold hearings for Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, because the next election was too close. Then, within hours of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, McConnell vowed to replace her before the next election.

Ginsburg, of course, was no ordinary justice. She was a hero to many. McConnell’s speed in replacing her comes across as not merely unseemly; to many who admired the late justice, it will also be a declaration of war.

Regardless of what McConnell does, the Court now looks far more conservative than the electorate. That too doesn’t bode well for the Court’s legitimacy, especially when the justices could once again decide the result of a presidential election. The Court may have to wade into one of the hundreds of voting-rights lawsuits triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many have followed fights about whether the president has deliberately crippled the U.S. Postal Service to make it harder to vote. Republicans have claimed (without evidence) that mail-in voting will lead to massive fraud and have sued to stop it.

snip

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/dangerous-court-legitimacy/616418/

[The Mouth]

1. But her emails!!!!

[RVN VET71]

2. Without the Senate, Biden will be virtually without weapons.

With the Senate, he could -- and definitely should -- stack the court to even the odds. FDR tried it but even Senators in his own Party balked at it, but under the current circumstances I don't see where any Democrat would fight Biden's effort. What FDR sought was to add a fresh (and Democratic) Justice to the court for every member who was over 70.5 years of age.

Biden may not be able to use that math. But he would not be constrained by it as long as the Senate was with him.

The GOP has broken the rules, shattered them along with their integrity and honor. Biden is under no requirement to restrain himself. If he chooses not to pack the court, well, mores the pity.

Without the Senate, of course, Biden will be powerless and subject to the continuing blocking of all of his plans and proposals by those enemies of the state known as Republicans.

[mdbl]

3. in the year 2000, the SCOTUS set the precedent of over-riding an election

what would stop them from doing that now?

[SlogginThroughIt]

4. I do believe that would start an ugly civil war

[mdbl]

9. It didn't then

why would it be different now?

[bucolic_frolic]

5. We are at a tipping point

It's like we're being goaded into a fight against totalitarianism. They have the means of oppression. We must use the ballot box to escape this quagmire.

[Grins]

6. Amazing line: "(Supreme) Court now looks far more conservative than the electorate"

And not just the Supreme Court.

An amazing sentence. Imagine what that implies.

[kwolf68]

7. It implies minority rule

Most people are pro-choice, won't matter.
Most people are pro-LGBT rights, won't matter.
Most people want religion and government separate, won't matter.
Most people want a clean environment, won't matter.
Most people want rights for workers, won't matter.
Most people believe money in politics is a bad thing, won't matter.

[dalton99a]

8. The Supreme Court is how Republicans will perpetuate their minority rule and hold veto power

over every Democratic initiative