Freeing slaves, permitting women to vote, allowing same-sex marriage---all were things that

[Atticus]

"could not be done"; all were "unprecedented"; all were "contrary to established law".

The same dismissive criticisms are now made of the suggestion that the appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be voided.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Perhaps you can direct us to the part of the Constitution that speaks of the voiding of

Supreme Court appointments.

Cite, please.

While we're at it, women aren't "permitted" to vote. They have the right to vote. This was accomplished through an amendment to the Constitution.

Equal marriage rights are not "allowed." They were won through a series of court cases, going all the way to the top.

I can cite those.

[lagomorph777]

9. See citations here:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3, Section 1

. . . The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . . .

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Impeachment is not the same thing as "voiding" an appointment.

To the OP: good luck finding a cause for impeachment, much less conviction.

[lagomorph777]

12. A bit of poetic license; most DUers aren't constitututional scholars.

Cause for impeachment (as we have seen) is entirely subjective. What is needed is huge majorities in House and Senate. Cause is then generated to fit. Not that I approve; but that is what it is.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. No problem.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar either, but this theme comes up at DU on a several-times-per-week basis.

Some people have this fantasy that justices can be removed because they (the posters) don't like them (the justices). That's not how it works. Trump nominates them, the Senate rubber stamps its approval, and on the bench they go.

It's all perfectly legal. If the posters don't like it, they can try winning some elections for a change.

[lagomorph777]

17. That's the key. Appointments and impeachments are both brute-force political processes.

The only realistic cure is to massively overpower the Republicans in the White House, House, and Senate.

[Atticus]

25. ---sigh---nowhere did I ever suggest that I wanted to replace SCOTUS justices "because I did not

like them." Trump stole the 2016 election with the assistance of Putin and widespread illegal voter suppression. Therefore, he did not LEGITIMATELY "win". His presidency is no more valid than an abusive contract procured by fraud. Logically, his "presidency" was "void ab initio".

It follows that an invalid and illegitimate "president" cannot make a valid legitimate nomination to the SCOTUS.

With one conclusory statement---"It's all perfectly legal"--- you normalize and attempt to legitimize the criminal Trump regime. Your glib dismissiveness actually proves my point: "It can't be done!" equals "It won't be done". You apparently agree with the core belief of conservatism: "Nothing should ever be done for the first time".

[mahatmakanejeeves]

26. My head hurts. NT

[Atticus]

27. I have no doubt. nt

[tritsofme]

32. None of that follows. It is nonsense.

The electoral college cast its votes, they were counted and certified by a joint session of Congress. There is no mechanism to “invalidate” appointments and laws that were passed during this time. The end.

[Atticus]

35. Thank you for such a clear example of the "dismissive criticisms" mentioned in my OP.

The end.

[tritsofme]

36. Nonsense like this should be dismissed, not humored.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. These things were accomplished legislatively and judicially after years of pressure from organized

activists who fought and died for the causes. Organizing that kind of dedication to removing two SCOTUS judges seems unlikely to me.

[safeinOhio]

3. I don't know about voided, but there is this..

"The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment."

So, if enough good people, Democrats, are elected to Congress they can be removed.

[lagomorph777]

10. YUP! It's in there in black and white.

[NYC Liberal]

4. They can be "voided" by a majority vote in the House and 2/3 in the Senate.

[dawg]

5. Easiest solution ...

Appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court as a 10th Justice. Appoint another (younger) liberal justice to the Supreme Court to prevent the possibility of tie votes.

The number of Supreme Court justices has traditionally been nine, but it isn't written in the Constitution. That's just one of those "norms" that the Republicans have been so respectful of.

We could accomplish this with the Presidency and 50 Senators.

[brooklynite]

7. So, it's okay for Republicans to add two more when they regain control at some future point?

[dawg]

8. Should they be allowed to steal a seat on the court without consequence?

Were they to regain the Senate in 2022, should they be allowed to block any nominees from the Democratic President for the final two years of his term?

We need a Constitutional amendement to fix this process. A narrow Senate majority should not be able to obstruct an opposing party President from making appointments to the court.

[Calista241]

14. If, god forbid, Trump wins another term, you and everyone else here

will LOVE the fact that a narrow majority can prevent another nomination to the Court.

[ehrnst]

24. We also need a secure majority in congress. The legislation must originate from the House

[brooklynite]

6. Okay - explain a method that accomplished those things that can be applied to Judicial Appointments

And explain a legal basis for removing Gorsuch.

[lagomorph777]

13. Only a political basis is needed. That's how impeachment works.

Sadly.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Forget it, brooklynite. It's Chinatown.

It's Chinatown - Chinatown (9/9) Movie CLIP (1974) HD
109,457 views•Oct 10, 2011

Movieclips
41.3M subscribers

Chinatown movie clips: http://j.mp/15vKcwj
BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/upfytN
Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr

We now return to our normal DU programming of "has anyone stopped to think what would happen if Trump lost the election and refused to leave office?"

{edited}

Why, look what just showed up:

Wed Jul 22, 2020: What Could Happen if Donald Trump Rejects Electoral Defeat?

[PatrickforO]

18. Ah, I like the cut of your jib, Atticus.

Let's not forget single payer healthcare - they've been telling us for YEARS how it cannot be done. But we need it now.

[ehrnst]

21. So why hasn't it been done? It was first brought up in 1971.

Democrats told Ted Kennedy to tell Nixon in 1971, "Single Payer or nothing" and we got nothing.

And Nixon was proposing a plan that was to the left of the ACA.

Kennedy said this was one of the biggest regrets of his political career, because we might be much, much closer to UHC than we are now.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

That said, single payer used by only a few countries that have Universal Health Care.

Why do the vast majority of countries use a hybrid system of payers with public/private partnerships to achieve universal health care and not single payer?

Why do you think it took Canada over 10 years to get a UHC, and why do you think that it's not run at a federal level, but primarily at a province by province level, if a federally run single payer plan is so easily done?

And if the SCOTUS of 2010 ruled that states did not have to participate in medicare expansion under the ACA, what makes you think that the SCOTUS of 2021 won't do the same with medcaid expansion to all the states, even if it could get passed into law?

I say this as someone who had great medical coverage when I lived in the UK. But I understand they didn't get to where they are in two years, as is promised by Sanders...and they didn't have a population that politicized it like ours does.

If you have realistic quick solutions, I'd love to hear them. But I don't see any. A restoration and expansion of the ACA is the most likely way to get everyone covered, as per experts. Our nation can't wait around for another 40 years of "single payer or nothing."

[PatrickforO]

33. We've argued about this before.

The infrastructure is in place for Medicare, and it could be phased in over a period of five or eight years. Please, please don't be a literalist here. Medicare for all does not mean tomorrow. But it does mean we need to be swimming together in that direction.

The ONLY thing, ehrnst, standing in the way, as you well know, is the shareholder primacy doctrine and the millions in health care corporate money lined up against doing the right thing.

I'm tired of it. Tired of profits over people. Tired of millions of Americans not having health care, or having unaffordable healthcare with financially crippling copays.

No, we need to do the right thing for the people. If this government is truly a government OF, BY and FOR the people, then we people need to use our taxes that we pay in for programs that benefit us, like healthcare and affordable college, not forever wars.

I'm tired, as an individual taxpayer, ehrnst, of individual taxpayers like me paying in $0.86 of every dollar the federal government collects, while corporations only pay $0.06 of every dollar. That is unsustainable.

I'm tired of the Republicans cutting taxes for billionaires and corporations, like they did in 2017, and then taking away programs that benefit us, the prime example being the dismantling of the US pandemic response team by Trump in 2018.

I'm tired of tax cuts and supply-side economics, or voodoo economics as Bush I called it, systematically rerouting money from our treasury into the pockets of billionaire parasites.

How about we reverse all tax cuts back to Reagan, make it so corporations are paying around 35% of all government revenue, as opposed to the current 6%, and how about we use those monies to fund some stuff we actually need.

Sure, I know about 'realpolitik,' but when I look at how things are, I see what could be.

Remember, ehrnst, any time we look under the rocks and look at the squirming maggots underneath, it is always an old liver-spotted male hand grasping for more profits. Revise the tax code, make the billionaire parasites into mere millionaires, and lets have some Medicare. Affordable college. Infrastructure upgrades and buildouts.

So, yeah, we need some major work, and with climate change, we no longer have the luxury of paying lip service to things like global warming and then doing nothing. Same with the Black Lives Matter - we aren't just going to be able to get back to business as usual, because this republic has been nearly ripped apart.

You know all this. I know you do. Make no mistake. I don't expect to get everything I want. But I do expect the new Democratic leadership (let's hope to God THAT happens!) to take some aggressive action in the right direction. Biden, for instance, is talking about expanding Medicare. Hey, good idea! Let's do that! It is a great start...

[ehrnst]

34. So basically you're admitting that it's not that easy.

As I've pointed out, it would take much longer than eight years, (BTW - Bernie's latest promise is two years....) even if congress and the Senate passed it, according to actual health policy experts. It took both the UK and Canada decades (and still tweaking), and they didn't start out with a population that had the expectations of keeping their same physician, and when they thought of governnment run services, they didn't have in mind an image of a DMV office. Public perception can tank legislation, and there is no getting around that.

If one wants to cherry pick reality to make the point, then one can promise anything. As we've seen.

But believing without question ever-expanding promises of a politician who is doing that, and lashes out at anyone as "corrupt" and "in the pocket of big medicine" who does point out the full reality, or asks a follow up question, isn't going to get us anywhere.

BTW - HRC was planning to propose expanding Medicare and allow those 55 and up to buy in, at a slightly higher price than what they would pay if they waited. That was intended to be part of expanding the ACA, which is our best shot at Universal Health Care, and most successful thus far, including the attempts at single payer.

What is your thought on the role of SCOTUS in getting single payer? You didn't comment on this: If the SCOTUS of 2010 ruled that states didn't have to participate in expanding Medicaid to a limited portion of the population even with full intial funding from the Federal Gov't, how do you think the SCOTUS of 2021 will rule on requiring states to expand Medicare to everyone? Canada runs NHS primarily from a province level, and it's got a much smaller population than the U.S.

If Ted Kennedy hadn't demanded "single payer or nothing" we might have something close to it now. I don't think we should make that mistake again.

[PatrickforO]

37. A lot of moving parts. The court has been packed by McConnell and his criminal henchmen.

It is easy, of course, to have 20/20 hindsight. Everyone familiar with history does.

But the SCOTUS of 2021? Hard to say. If the Democrats blow the Republicans out of the water, and I'm talking about party-killing election results, then we might be able to ram in a couple more justices - at least Merrick Garland or someone else who is sane. Honestly, there's no telling what will happen, unless it is what we ourselves make happen with a) our votes, and b) our continued involvement, and c) strong Democratic majorities in House and Senate, with Biden in the White House. If that happens, we have a chance, but only if our party's leadership gets itself together with a five- to ten-year plan. We don't do that quite as well as the GOP did, which is why our republic is crumbling around us with the Trump-McConnell axis of evil. They move in lock step.

As to 'single payer or nothing,' that's not where I'm coming from, though I am never shy about saying I believe it is the solution and we need it now. Because people who are suffering now do need it now. On the ground, you know, as these proverbial mill wheels of progress grind slowly, ever-so-slowly, we must always be mindful that millions of Americans don't have healthcare - I think about 33% of the people in TX don't - and to be without healthcare is to lose everything if you get sick. So there really IS a moral urgency here. What is it O said? 'The fierce urgency of now.'

What is it MLK Jr. said in his letter from Birmingham Jail? "For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied.""

Because, you know, if it were a member of your family, or mine, who was ill with cancer or some such and having to choose whether to eat or get chemo, the issue of healthcare takes on a much different face. And many of the millions who do not have healthcare right now are working Americans and some are sick right now, losing everything they have down the gaping maw of healthcare profits. The situation itself is vile. What we have does not work for everyone, just for those lucky enough to have employer provided plans - but the copay in my own such plan is............you guessed it.............financially crippling.

So, no, there's nothing good about this. Which is why I do expect, and believe I and other Americans, have the right to expect some aggressive movement in the right direction by Democrats, provided they are in the majority in 2021, with plans taking into account Supreme Court challenges and so on. The party really needs a sound strategic plan. Big time. Because we have the leadership, which is older, in their seventies, and then we have the young progressives. Not sure what is in between, but there is hopefully some real strategy in there.

And the American people seem to be moving left on healthcare - spurred on by the pandemic and its uncertainties. What is it? About a million new unemployment claims a week for how many weeks?

[ehrnst]

38. "To the left" of what in healthcare? The ACA?

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2020, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

What is the polling you're basing this statement on?

MLK was not talking about health care policy, and while his words are used to justify any number of things, they don't always fit. It's beautiful in philosophy, certainly, but not always applicable to politics. For instance, Obama could have issued an executive order and immediately gotten marriage equality, but it would have been temporary, because the next GOP POTUS could overturn it just as quickly. He waited for the court system to take it's course to make it a much more permanent right.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/23/president-obama-speaks-his-mind

There is no quick way (under 25 years) to upend our health care funding system without disrupting health care delivery, and the economy that would be disrupted in the ecosystem that's grown up around our patchwork system.

There is a saying in the architecture world, and applies to pretty much any project - "Cheap, fast or good: pick two"

In order to get it fast (2 years??!! because apparently it needed to one-up every other candidate's proposal...), and not disrupt health care delivery, it will cost much, much more than is being proposed. And you cannot lie about the costs, as LBJ did with Medicare and Medicaid. We have a CBO now, and if there numbers crunching states that it will harm the economy and health care access more than help, the bill will die right there and then. The ACA passed that test.

Again.... none of the countries with UHC did it fast. The also did it decades ago when costs and techologies were cheaper. And again, single payer is not the only way to get to UHC.. I've shared this with you before, but for purposes of review:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda

You can quote MLK all you like about needing justice immediately, but even MLK knew it wouldn't happen fast. Or without great cost.

Eleanor Holmes Norton has posited that desegregation was done too quickly, and the backlash harmed an entire generation of black children who didn't get any education at all, and cause leaders to dig in more stubbornly on Jim Crow laws and politce brutality. An incremental approach may have been slower, but in the long run, less damaging and more effective for far more people.

Peaceful protest was also not a quick way to get something done, but it was an effective way to get attention and goodwill towards the movement, as are riveting inspirational speeches.

Honestly, there's no telling what will happen

If there's '"no way of telling what will happen" why doesn't that also apply to the potential negative effect of MFA on health care delivery and the economy? Certain people seem to be very, very sure of "what will happen," until questioned about the very real obstacles, and non-partisan, independent experts then they suddenly decide, "I'm not going to speculate on that."

So, yes, there can be informed predictions, and seriously, getting two more SCOTUS justices is certainly not something to count on, in fact, it's very unlikely. But it's a good way to dodge a difficult question, isn't it?

The benefits of seeing the long game is something that MLK understood. I wish others did as well.

[plimsoll]

19. Gorsuch and beer bong are probably done deals.

The real issue is that the GOP only moves forward with nominations when it suits their timelines. A statute requiring hearings on judicial nominees within X days/weeks/months of nomination or the nominee is automatically appointed would have stopped Gorsuch. Who sadly does appear to be a better judge than beer bong or Thomas.

[MichMan]

28. If McTurtle would have scheduled a vote on Garland, they could have voted him down.

Nothing says we still wouldnt have ended up with Gorsuch either way.

[plimsoll]

29. Yes, but we be rid of beer bong.

[MichMan]

30. How?

He was confirmed by the Senate. Under your proposal requiring a vote in x number of days or they automatically get confirmed, Kavanaugh wouldn't have even needed a hearing at all.

In that case, McConnell could have done nothing and he would have been confirmed anyway without ever being questioned or having a vote.

[plimsoll]

31. Merrick Garland would have been in that seat.

You can assume that Gorsuch was the first choice If trump only got one seat to fill I think Gorsuch would have been the choice.

The only reason there were two seats in his term was due to McConnell not holding hearings for Garland. That should not have happened, yet more GOP shattering of norms.

On the other hand rest assured that Moscow Mitch will call senators back to confirm #3 if there is an opening 1 second before the next president is sworn in.

Your point about not needing a hearing is good though, corrupt people will find a ways to be corrupt.

[ehrnst]

20. OK, so if we remove Gorsuch and Kavanaugh prior to January, who chooses their replacement?

[bucolic_frolic]

22. Deep combing of Congressional testimony is a start

with deep background checks that should have been completed the first time. Mitch's suspension of the Constitution is another point in re: Merrick Garland. He played hard ball. Why can't Democrats?

No we don't end the filibuster. But we do figure out how to use it.

What has me worried? The entire GOP Senate is mimicking silence when questioned about anything. Just like Mitch in 2016 re: Supreme Court nomination. What are they up to?

[H2O Man]

23. Recommended.

Muhammad Ali said that those who do not believe in "miracles were unrealistic, and did not appreciate what determined people could achieve.