Breyer to retire
-
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
I forgot: He already pledged...
Joe Biden has promised that if elected president, he'd put the first black woman on the Supreme Court. To make good on that pledge, he’d have to look in some atypical places.
This is pretty common. Reagan promised to put a woman on the court. Elder Bush chose Thomas to replace Marshall, if you think race was accidental in that selection there’s always that bridge you can buy. In the fall of 2020 Trump pledged to nominate a woman.
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 12:22 last edited by@jon-nyc I'd forgotten about Trump's pledge, but not the others.
Continuing about the GOP blocking the nomination via procedures path (see "inside baseball" - above).
Nope:
"Motion to discharge" requires a simple majority.
But it's interesting what happens when the senate is tied - does the VEEP have a say?
There seems to be a difference of opinion.
The Dersh: https://www.newsweek.com/can-vice-president-break-tie-supreme-court-confirmation-opinion-1533563
Never in our history has a Supreme Court nomination been confirmed by an equally divided vote among U.S. senators, with the vice president breaking the tie. But if one more Republican senator decides to vote no on President Donald Trump’s nominee—whoever she may be—we may face that situation. Did the Framers of our Constitution consider such a result? Several provisions and statements of the Framers cast light on this question.
There are three provisions of the Constitution that are most relevant. Article 2 empowers the president to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.” Article 1 provides that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Article 1 also states that “Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
It is clear, therefore, that in voting on proposed statutes, the vice president is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote. But did the Framers intend the same rule to apply when the president is seeking the advice and consent of senators to a judicial nomination? We can’t know for certain, because the Constitution and Federalist Papers focus on the vice president’s role in breaking ties over legislation, not confirmation.
Lawrence Tribe: https://archive.is/qPnVS
While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices.
Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution.
I doubt it'll come to that, with Collins being the 51st vote.
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 12:26 last edited by
It shouldn't come to that. There's everything for the GOP to lose and nothing to gain by gumming up the works. Whoever Biden appoints won't significantly reshape the court for quite some time to come. Maybe ever.
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 13:15 last edited by
Interesting timing… Will the female black judge that got the position at least in part because she is a black female be on the bench and making a decision on the Affirmative Action Admissions case?
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 13:17 last edited byThis post is deleted!
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 13:41 last edited by
Unless it’s handled this year.
But even this year, the black man who got his job in part because of his black skin will be voting on it. So that doesn’t make much of a difference
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 14:25 last edited by
I'm disappointed that George didn't title this thread "Breyer Beware..."
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 14:30 last edited by
@kluurs said in Breyer to retire:
I'm disappointed that George didn't title this thread "Breyer Beware..."
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 14:49 last edited by
Seen on Twitter:
"The main character of the last show you watched has been nominated to the Supreme Court."
Well...
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 15:45 last edited by
Hm, that would be James Holden for me.
Could be worse. Not an unreasonable choice.
-
Seen on Twitter:
"The main character of the last show you watched has been nominated to the Supreme Court."
Well...
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 17:39 last edited by -
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 18:23 last edited by
You guys forgot the job requirements
And having the right wig helps
-
@jon-nyc I'd forgotten about Trump's pledge, but not the others.
Continuing about the GOP blocking the nomination via procedures path (see "inside baseball" - above).
Nope:
"Motion to discharge" requires a simple majority.
But it's interesting what happens when the senate is tied - does the VEEP have a say?
There seems to be a difference of opinion.
The Dersh: https://www.newsweek.com/can-vice-president-break-tie-supreme-court-confirmation-opinion-1533563
Never in our history has a Supreme Court nomination been confirmed by an equally divided vote among U.S. senators, with the vice president breaking the tie. But if one more Republican senator decides to vote no on President Donald Trump’s nominee—whoever she may be—we may face that situation. Did the Framers of our Constitution consider such a result? Several provisions and statements of the Framers cast light on this question.
There are three provisions of the Constitution that are most relevant. Article 2 empowers the president to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.” Article 1 provides that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Article 1 also states that “Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
It is clear, therefore, that in voting on proposed statutes, the vice president is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote. But did the Framers intend the same rule to apply when the president is seeking the advice and consent of senators to a judicial nomination? We can’t know for certain, because the Constitution and Federalist Papers focus on the vice president’s role in breaking ties over legislation, not confirmation.
Lawrence Tribe: https://archive.is/qPnVS
While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices.
Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution.
I doubt it'll come to that, with Collins being the 51st vote.
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 18:37 last edited by jon-nycThe Dersh:
Lawrence Tribe:Two partisan tools that should have retired by now.
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 18:40 last edited by Mik
@improviso said in Breyer to retire:
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
Well...
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
-
@improviso said in Breyer to retire:
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
Well...
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 18:50 last edited by@mik said in Breyer to retire:
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
And, if you watched the mini-series, you'd know he's unavailable.
-
@mik said in Breyer to retire:
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
And, if you watched the mini-series, you'd know he's unavailable.
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 20:30 last edited by@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
And, if you watched the mini-series, you'd know he's unavailable.
I'm only on season 7. Don't tell me.
-
wrote on 27 Jan 2022, 23:58 last edited by
-
wrote on 28 Jan 2022, 00:17 last edited by
I saw that today. Did not read it (Newsmax, y’know), but how exactly would that work? I don’t want to have to wade thru all the ED potion ads.
-
wrote on 28 Jan 2022, 01:21 last edited by
-
wrote on 28 Jan 2022, 02:01 last edited by
-
wrote on 28 Jan 2022, 02:20 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Breyer to retire:
quota-based diversity
Yes, another black justice will make 22% of the court black
Only 12% of the country is black, 22% appears to be too many justices of color
But wait, you are doing the wrong math. There have 114 Supremes, and only 2 black. There is a long way to go.