Now Trump gets the Supreme Court and the damage may be irreversible

[swag]

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/27/now-trump-gets-the-supreme-court-and-the-damage-may-be-irreversible/?source=newsletter

Amanda Marcotte

Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver, published a piece for Pacific Standard arguing that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was smart to organize an unprecedented blockade of any hearings for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, because the choice likely helped give Donald Trump the presidential election.

“McConnell’s move made the Supreme Court seat an issue for the presidential election,” Masket wrote. “It motivated conservatives to stay on board with the Republican presidential nominee no matter who it was.”

A lot of conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, had their doubts about a glib, insincere libertine like Trump, especially someone who had a history of donating to Democratic politicians and no record of Republican loyalty. But that empty seat on the Supreme Court, Masket argued, tipped the scales.

“The balance of the Court, particularly on such issues as abortion, was in play,” he wrote. “Abandon the nominee, and Hillary Clinton gets to pick the next one, two, or three justices. Stand by the nominee, no matter how repellent, and you get to.”

My inclination is to agree with Masket. One of the most interesting things that I found, talking to attendees at both the Republican and Democratic conventions over the summer, was that Republicans often spoke about the Supreme Court and Democrats almost never did. The tendency to cite control of the court was particularly pronounced among Trump-skeptical Republicans I spoke with. Very few of them talked about the economy but the court came up over and over again. The opposite was true when I spoke with Democratic voters.

. . . more

[exboyfil]

1. We get a younger Scalia and have to pray for

health of all eight current judges.

[Mike Nelson]

2. ...and...

...Republicans will be filling all the courts with reactionary judges.

[3catwoman3]

3. McConnel was so adamant about this that it...

...makes me think the Republican powers-that-be already knew the fix was in and that they were confident that they were going to steal this election.

Fuck him and the turtle he rode in on.

[global1]

4. I Agree With Your Statement Completely...

They knew the fix was in. I still say that we have just witnessed a backdoor coup d'etat in this country.

[Uponthegears]

5. We "might" get a younger and/or healthier Scalia

and every one of us who adheres to a religious tradition had best spend whatever time we are not spending taking back the Senate in '18 on our knees praying that the 4 moderate justices and the 2 swing justices continue to live.

Past that, however, stop the hand-wringing. You can't get worse than Scalia, so anyone who replaces him will not move the Court to the right. Things will stay as they've been for almost 40 years. We can put up with that for 2/4 years.

There are only 13 vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals and Obama got to fill a boat load of vacancies before the Republicans took the Senate. That's far too few to make the kind of ideological shift that Bush was able to accomplish.

There are only about 40 vacancies on the District Courts, a small percentage of the total and any decision they make has to get by a Court of Appeals.

The tragedy, vis a vis the federal courts, of this election was not that they will move radically, of even perceptively, to the right. It is that we lost a rare opportunity to move the court dramatically to the left. From gun control, to voter rights, to habeas corpus, to campaign finance, the Court has made one 5-4 decision after another against us. One liberal justice replacing a conservative, the one we lost in this election, would have changed history.

Weep, don't worry.

AND

Take back the Senate and shut judicial appointments down

[lastlib]

7. I strongly disagree that Scalia's replacement won't move the Court to the right.

True, the leanings of the judges won't be any farther to the right, perhaps, but the decisions they make WILL almost certainly tilt the law to the right. Roe v. Wade is in danger; Citizens United and other corporate rights will likely be expanded; unions, and workers in general, will get absolutely fucked; gun safety laws will likely be thrown out wholesale. Rights of those accused of crimes and civil rights, (especially voting rights!) get rolled waa-aaay back. Totality of all this is that the law and the nation as a whole take a massive tilt to the right, back to the 1890s or so.

What do we have to fight back with? At this point, looks like we have only our voices and our backbones. Maybe, if things get bad enough, we'll be able to find torches and pitchforks, but don't be surprised if the oligarchs don't go after those.

[Uponthegears]

9. Love that last line!!!!!

Could you help me out though and explain how or why, when even with a worse version of Scalia - if it is possible, it still takes Kennedy to make 5, you see the Court moving even farther right?

[lastlib]

13. I don't see the *judges* per se being any farther to the right---

for the time being--but I see the *decisions* that they make pushing the law further to the right. Recall the old line (from the 1890's, IIRC) that "th' Soopreme Court follows th' ilection returns"? There's a lot of truth to it, and I suspect the recent election returns, coupled with a new tRump-appointed justice, may press Kennedy to the right. Factor in the logic that Kennedy won't be around forever (and neither will Ginsburg and Breyer), and the likelihood of them being replaced by right-tilted judges, and it certainly appears that the judicial outlook for this country is pretty grim for those of us with progressive leanings.

[Uponthegears]

14. Omg

Wash your mouth out with soap for even mentioning the possibility that a moderate or Kennedy leaves the bench. IF that happens, we are doomed or desperate. But you have a great point.

[citood]

8. 2018 Senate is an uphill climb

23 seats to defend vs 8 Republican seats to defend, and two independent seats to defend (which caucus with Democrats).

[Uponthegears]

10. No doubt

[awoke_in_2003]

6. For a year

The president and senate dems have refused to hold republicans feet to the fire. They should have brought it up every time a camera was in the face. They should have ground the senate to a halt. But no- they were convinced that we were going to win, and HRC would handle it. Good going, Harry- you damn quisling.

[MFM008]

11. If I was in the senate

He wouldn't get ANYTHING through for however long he's there.
Filibuster.

[meadowlark5]

12. Then add in a starved and crippled public eduction system

Many will be forced into charter schools and others will choose religious schools - all of which have no oversight and can choose their curriculum. Indoctrinate the young to be religious or authoritarian.

A Trump presidency will last well past his one or two terms. And so much can be put in place to manipulate the votes in elections that Karl Rove will finally see his permanent republican majority.