The Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Open Thread

What’s the chances that the Dems can get their shit together just long enough to pull off the same thing the GOP did with Obama’s supreme court pick? They did set up a precedent after all, so it’s not impossible.

Failing that, now might be a good time to consider the measures that can be taken when voting fails to work. I’m not entirely comfortable saying it straight out, but when push comes to shove there’s always more drastic measures that can be taken.

@Victorious Parasol

I don’t like those odds at all.

After the 2016 elections, I went to my local Canadian consulate, and I couldn’t get any answers to my questions about moving there.
Namely, 1: I haven’t been able to build a well-paying professional career in America, despite my knowledge and education. As the proverbial “lots of education and little experience” applicant, is that de facto considered an unskilled worker?
2: What about my substantial student debt, hefty in large part because of the failed career? Students with large debts to the American government are doubtless riskier prospects, but what can I do to offset that? Or am I just automatically disqualified? (There would be millions of educated Americans disqualified if that’s the case!)
3. How rigorous is the physical exam? I’ve heard of China not allowing immigrants who are obese or over a certain age (is that substantiated?) How many other countries have such requirements?

Even without our government going down the drain, I sincerely believe that by now, in my early 40’s, I may need to move to a new country to have any hope of building a professional career and putting my education to work. I haven’t been able to break in precisely because of our neoliberal values– I simply am not willing to be a 24/7 cheerleader for my corporation, or subordinate my whole life to being a good culture fit. I have the audacity to believe that no, you should NOT have to be similar to someone to get along with them or work with them well, but apparently no decision makers believe that anymore, and they certainly have engineered the work culture so that nobody who isn’t a faithful upholder of corporate culture makes it into the C-suite, or in some cases even gets a foot in the door. Other countries, who do not subscribe to at-will employment, might give me a better chance.

Nothing I learned made a lick of difference to HR people who put hiring for culture fit above everything else, and they flat-out didn’t care that my skills would atrophy if I didn’t use them… and quite possibly, they deliberately allowed them to atrophy so they could show me where they thought I belonged in their workplace hierarchies.

I have felt shame all my adult life over never having been a leader or having anything else in my track record to demonstrate leadership skill. And too many people believe that if I haven’t shown leadership potential by my age, I don’t have what it takes. You gotta “stick with your strengths”, after all.

Well, what happens if you don’t like your strengths, don’t believe they’re valued, or believe they won’t allow you to earn a living wage? Too often, the response from the American workplace is “too bad, your strengths are baked into the cake!” And indeed, why would companies want to ruin a good thing? They’re happier when you stick with your strengths, as that makes them more money. And they get to tell themselves that you’re happier by using your strengths. It’s a win-win for them!

The truth is, America hasn’t been free for a long time, because if you have to be a certain type of personality, demographic, or attitude to get ahead, or increasingly to earn a living at all, then you are NOT free. You always have the specter of unemployability hanging over your head, for the “crimes” of disagreeing with your boss or failing to “click” with your co-workers.
When Americans’ jobs are on the line, they WILL fall in line, and that’s been a fact for decades.

Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. 

~ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-judicial-branch/

I suspect they’re desperately calling the IT department to get that page taken down.

I honestly don’t believe one moment that the republicans won’t replace her by the worse possible caricature of a human being.

At that point, I hope for a revolution. The problem is that every revolutions end up with hundreds of thousands deaths and several years of authoritarism. But the best case scenario is the same level of devastation, only delayed by 4 years if Biden win.

Good luck, fellow americans. And have a thought for use french when we will be in the same position in 5-10 years, since apparently it’s how it work.

@Alan Robertshaw

Our Supreme Court does have the power to draft people to sit on hearings; although they have to be judges with appellate experience. Sorry; but you have time to hit the books.

OTOH in the US there is no such requirement, so in theory I could be confirmed to the Supreme Court despite my lack of law degree or judicial experience.

@Ohlmann
The way I see it is: direct action is needed. If Biden is elected that will give somewhat more stability and will make change easier, though it does not eliminate the need for action. It’s easier to change the system when there is an indifferent administration than an openly hostile one.

O/T: Somehow the ICE thing just got even worse. Apparently the doctor doing all the non-consensual hysterectomies is not board certified and has settled at least 2 malpractice cases resulting in deaths of pregnant patients or their newborn babies.

@Anonymous

What’s the chances that the Dems can get their shit together just long enough to pull off the same thing the GOP did with Obama’s supreme court pick? They did set up a precedent after all, so it’s not impossible.

The odds are 0%

The reason the GOP was able to do that was because the GOP had a majority in the Senate at the time of Merrick Garland’s nomination. The Dems are still in the minority; they simply don’t have the power to stop this through standard (or even rare) parliamentary tactics. If this is going to be stopped, it’s because some Republicans voted with Dems to stop this. And if some Reps vote with the Dems it’s only because the public puts IMMENSE pressure on them.

@Alan

Any argument predicated on the ability to predict Trump’s future behavior as a rational extrapolation of past behavior is just asking to be invalidated by some deranged and random whimsy.

@Alan Robertshaw

Then he galvanises the conservative base to get out and vote to ensure he wins. If he sticks a justice in beforehand people may look at the actuarial tables and decide there’s no need to vote before 2024.

I don’t think he feels he needs to do that. His base will vote for him no matter what he does, so it wouldn’t make a difference to them.

The best way to influence him would be to feed a fake Fox News channel onto his TV

Anyone got a high-powered TV transmitter in the DC Area?

or just tell him Obama did whatever you wanted him to do the opposite of.

Wel, Obama did nominate a justice in an election year…

@Surplus:

1. Filibuster. They don’t have enough Republicans for cloture, do they?
2. What about unpacking the court? What happens if Congress passes a bill reducing it to, say, its historical minimum size of six? Does Congress get to pick which two justices get the boot (hint: the correct answers are Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), or does the Pres or the Senate pick (not such a good idea if the Repugs retain the body that gets to pick), or does it simply not count as having a vacancy until it shrinks down to five (so if the next two likely to quit or die are conservative, good, otherwise not so good)?

As for #1: No, they don’t have enough Republicans for Cloture, but the filibuster isn’t a law or constitutional requirement – it’s only a Senate rule. And changing the senate rules only requires a simple majority in the Senate (the House doesn’t get a say in the Senate rules & vice versa). So the senate Reps can simply propose a new rule “Filibusters don’t count for this particular SCOTUS nomination”, pass it with 51 votes, and then cloture doesn’t matter.

What has always stopped people from doing that before is

1. Fear of what will happen when the majority becomes the minority and what the other side will do in retaliation
2. Respect for institutions & traditions
3. A sense of shame.

But none of those 3 exist for current GOP senators.

As for #2: As I said, appointments are for life. No one is kicked off the court when congress mandates a smaller court. It’s just that no one can be added until then court membership drops below the new number specified (as you speculated in your 3rd possibility).

Now, we could of course impeach one or more of the SCOTUS justices, but actual removal from the bench requires 67 votes, which the Dems won’t have under the rosiest scenario. So unpacking the court can’t happen.

@Ohlmann

In just about every way I’d say.

Reactionaries are already looking at whatever excuse they can grab a hold off to brutalize and murder political opponents. They have had a few instances where they can get away with it. A full scale war though? If it ends in failure then they WILL retaliate in the nastiest ways imaginable. I imagine nothing short of torture, or full blown Turner Diaries/Handmaid’s Tale.

@Ohlmann

I think you slightly underestimate war. Listen, I entirely believe that moments such as these call for a fight, but I’m being pretty realist here. If you are going to look at war as an option you’d better make sure you have a plan other than “you know what would be neat? if we overthrew these murderous Nazi assholes”; because pretty soon you will find yourself targeted by the media, the Nazis, the military and even plenty of these “militias”.

There is a reason the Nazis are going in roundabout ways of killing people and forming small terror cells which, if caught or dismantled, will not jeopardize their operations or compromise other members. They know they would not stand a fucking chance if they overtly tried to overthrow the government.

It’s easy to say war, but the logistics are far more complicated and to win it you’d need the military on your side. I don’t see it as a feasible option, unless other countries pitch in or unless they make a mistake that would antagonize the military.

And I assure you, the minute you declare war they will drop all pretense, treat it as a race war, and actively start murdering POC wherever they can find them. So again, I don’t disagree that violence and war are an answer to these sort of circumstances but I don’t see us winning that fight as things currently stand.