How would it be illegal or violent.

Won’t wash. SC appointments are inherently political. The appointments process is riddled with politics. There’s zero fucking “independence” at that stage to be circumvented. You’re confusing independence in discharging the role with independence at the appointments stage.

How is what McConnell did over Garland anything other than “circumventing an appointment they didn’t like”? McConnell rewrites the rules; well rewriting rules has consequences.

And how is this anything other than McConnell attacking Roberts for not being sufficiently partisan? It’s plain as day that the GOP now doesn’t trust Roberts to toe the conservative line reliably.

And if it is constitutionally permissible, then either the constitution is defective or necessarily it isn’t a direct attack.

Your better point, had you thought about it a bit more, would have been that whether it is constitutionally permissible isn’t the point; the point is that both parties ought to observe conventions that restrain them from doing this. Because if they don’t, they enter into a never ending escalation which will mean the SCOTUS is 19, 21, 27, 35 or whatever justices in 20 years’ time.

The grand problem, as I see it:

The door is open for the Senate Majority Leader to fill the seat and to virtually name the nominee or to leave it open indefinitely.

If they are in the party opposing the President, they can let a nominee twist in the wind for four years, given there is no “one year rule” (now that the Republicans are abandoning that “rule.”) So, if there’s no agreement on 365 days, there’s no agreement on anything.

If they are in the same party as the President, they can mandate (behind the scenes) who will be nominated or they can sit on that nomination forever. I admit this is less likely but it is the power that is now in the hands of the Senate Majority Leader.

So, is the new rule: You must have the Presidency and the Senate to seat a Supreme Court Judge?

Everyone comes at this from their own perspective. From mine (England), I see the problem as being that the appointments are politically selected and politically approved. So there’s a wrestling match built into the process. The 60 votes rule ameliorated this somewhat, but it’s still fundamentally political.

In England judicial appointments are made by the head of state (the Queen) on the advice of the Lord Chancellor (a political appointment), in turn acting on the advice of the Judicial Appointments Commission (an apolitical body). There is much that can be criticized about the JAC, but it isn’t that it has a political slant either way. In practice the JAC’s advice gets rubber stamped at the next two levels. And we have mandatory retirement of judges at 70.

However, our Supreme Court is an “all laws” court, not simply a constitutional court. And constitutional cases often throw up acute political considerations.

We all get that. The problem is that your opinion doesn’t seem to take into account the definition of what a coup is or what tantamount means.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Like proroguing parliament......😂

Tantamount:

Equivalent in seriousness to

https://www.lexico.com/...efinition/tantamount

Tantamount to a coup

Equivalent in seriousness to a coup.

My sentence structure and word choice is correct. You can disagree with my opinion.

The Supreme Court has been around what 10 15 years? Give it time.

Except it isn’t like a coup in any sense. A coup requires a sudden, violent, and illegal takeover of power.

Here we would have a non-sudden (with an election), non violent, and legal action.

FFS I linked the Oxford English Dictionary definition of tantamount. If you can't read it get someone else to because I'm growing tired of people not understanding a basic fucking word.

Interesting ideas kicking around the interwebs on how to respond if the Republicans fill RBG's seat and (if) the Democrats take control of the Senate and Presidency... including "going nuclear" and never looking back. We've all heard about increasing the court to eleven members with the caution that the Republicans would increase it when they can and it would never end.

The nuclear options have to include making it virtually impossible for the Republicans to ever hold the Senate again.
1) Make D.C. a State (hello two new Senators!)
2) Grant Statehood to all five inhabited Territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands). You gain a few electoral votes and Reps in the House, but hello to ten more Senators.
3) Divide California into Northern and Southern California, granting Statehood to both, again gaining electoral votes and Reps, and hello to two more Senators.
4) Make voter registration "automatic" and so easy a caveman could do it.
5) Make national election days federal holidays.
6) Expand the court, but not to eleven or thirteen members. Go ahead and expand it to 21 members and stuff it.

[/b]

Yep it is just not the equivalent as a coup.

A coup has a meaning. A violent, sudden, illegal seizure of power.

It cannot amount to a coup if there is nothing illegal, nothing violent, or nothing sudden.

If you are saying democrats winning an election and using the constitution is similar or as serious to a coup in any way, then you are on your own. (Literally because no one agrees with you)

Maybe you can explain to me how the democrats sweeping an election 50 days away and using the rules in the constitution 5 months from now in any way be violent. Sudden. Or illegal.

But at this point I am done with you. Not I’m just here but in general on this board. You level of name calling/insults in this thread has been completely unwarranted.

I notice you left out the second half of that definition, sport.

“Virtually the same as”

A coup is a violent and illegal takeover. Congress acting within their rights per the Constitution is not tantamount or virtually the same as or even equivalent in seriousness to a violent and illegal takeover of the government. It just isn’t, and the only way to get there as an opinion is to ignore what the words actually mean.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

FFS, you’re the one who is misusing words to defend your pretty ridiculous and transparently contrarian statement.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

No. It had a label change. It was called the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

Next.

Sigh you're still missing the point I'm trying to make

I'll review but I don't think I called you any names. If I did and you took offense I apologize

Hmm may I suggest you review the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. You had me going there for a minute. I knew it was the House of Lords and I knew it changed relatively recently but I'll admit I didn'tknow the details; the Supreme Court is new.

Fine a legal coup. Usurpation of the judiciary. Whatever it is I would be opposed.

Ahh, no. The CRA 2005 established the UKSC in place of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, but it was just a label change.

Previously appointees were promoted to the JCHL and given life peerages entitling them to take a seat in the HL and sit on the JCHL. Now appointees are promoted to the SC and given life peerages. Oh, and the SC has a new building across Parliament Square from the HL, with screens and stuff. The new building is the really big change that the SC brought in. In the HL they used a Committee room with a couple of tables. Now it actually looks like a court.

Goddammit. I have to read up on this now. I don't like not knowing things.

Save your energy. We have an unwritten constitution. You’ll find some of what you’re looking for, but not all of it unless you know where to look or who to ask.

Flexible, see, this unwritten stuff.