UKH

youtube.com/watch?v=nPGdI9X2sKQ&

God, 2020 just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?

Apart from the loss itself, I'd guess any of our US friends who want to have abortions had better get them in now.

jcm

Yes, a big loss. Usually I raise an eyebrow when people talk about the effect of the death of a very old famous person but she was active and activist every moment to the end, pretty much. 

I have at least one foot in the US. Though currently outside the country for a period, I have permanent residency and am close to applying for citizenship. My wife and teenage stepdaughter are both natural born US citizens. America faces very dark threats and a profound moment of truth and reckoning. If Trump succeeds in appointing another justice all bets will be off. Roe vs Wade will be overturned and there will be no legal access to abortion. Think about that. Many other equal and civil rights will be swept away. Recent gains made by LGBQT communities will be dismantled. DACA will end. And voting rights protection will be gutted, leaving the electoral system even more vulnerable to being rigged, opening up the prospect of White Christian supremacy entrenching itself for a generation or more. 

Nightmare, I assumed it would be too late for GOP to appoint a replacement, apparently not. Anything dodgy Trump tries to do to cheat the election that ends up at the Supreme Country will rule in his favour, this is awful. 

Really terrible news.

Most importantly, she was a Supreme Court Justice, Trump will now try and replace her with a crony.

I so despise Mitch McConnell, a truly evil man

Yup. So chances of them listening to the last wish of someone who served her country faithfully all her life are?

Answers my question above.

With Romney, Collins, Murkowski (sp), and possibly others like sasse it's not a forgone conclusion and they may want to wait and use it as political leverage to highlight the importance of the election. I'm not sure they'll get it done before November but it could be done in the lame duck session.

I have zero knowledge of the US constitution, but it sounds like a horrible flaw to me that the timing of a judge's death could have far reaching consequence for national policy. Crazy how much power is concentrated in those people. 

It would be better if instead of being granted a lifetime seat that judges were forced to retire in the USA at say 70. This would help to keep the Supreme Court less moribund.  
 

She has become an icon really only in recent years. But still a brilliant individual. 

I think it would help more if appointments to SCOTUS weren’t so nakedly political and on the basis of nominations from the President.

What would really help is tearing up the Constitution, which contains a number of really stupid features. But I'm not holding my breath.

jcm

Well, Trump seems to be doing his best in this respect.  If not tearing it up, then walking all over it...

The judges are one of nine, remember, and their appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate. It isn't necessarily as disasterous as the scenario envisioned by Old Skooled above - though I suppose the original framers of Checks & Balances assumed everyone involved would more or less be reasonable people

I was talking about worst case scenarios to highlight the importance of this moment. Incidentally, it is nowhere written that the court has to have nine members (or any other number). It has had as few as six and as many as ten. 

Yes, that's the problem - they didn't foresee the election of a career criminal nor indeed the utter abrogation of principle displayed by the Republican party as they fight the last stages of the rearguard action against non-whites which has been the long and bitter history of US domestic policy from the beginning.  But that's always the problem with written documents intended to  cover all eventualities - sooner or later there arises an eventuality not foreseen.

In reply to Old Skooled, I believe the SC itself decided just after the war that it was not constitutionally possible to have more than nine judges. On what basis they did that I've no idea, but I've seen this quoted by apparently knowledgeable types as a significant obstacle to the plan of simply appointing a few more to cancel out Trump's proposed loony-woman.

jcm

They did do a reasonably good job of trying to divide the power up between the three branches to prevent any one from corrupting the system. Just when you have two of the branches decide to throw everything to the wind to corrupt the third does it fall down.

Its been changed on several occasions (starting with 6 going up to 10 before dropping down to 9) so not sure how that can work?

Nor me - indeed googling it briefly doesn't reveal the decision I thought I heard Jeffrey Toobin refer to (JT being a law professor and frequent commentator on US cable).

jcm

 could be wrong but as I understand it there is no constitutional obstacle to increasing the size of the court, 11 being the most frequently touted number at the moment. I can't understand why there would be so much serious discussion of that possibility right now if there was a clear and well known barrier?

There has been quite a lot of talk in recent years of "court packing" - IIRC (and I've heard Toobin on this along with all the normal centre and lefty journo-lawyers I hear regularly on US radio and podcasts) there isn't any constitutional reason why  it couldn't be done. I though Eisenhower or someone around that era either threatened to do it or just added more justices?

FDR

FDR definitely wanted to do it because his New Deal legislation kept getting thwarted. But like Toby I think what I heard Toobin talking about was Eisenhower shortly post-war trying to do it and being blocked by an SC decision. I'll see if I can find the clip and listen more carefully.

jcm

Cheers. I've just started teaching A level politics, and although we don't do the US until next year, I need to be getting on top of the specifics! I've got a deep and wide knowledge of US politics after decades of following American current affairs - but I need to start revising all the specifics so I can answer kids questions without "errr... hang on. I'll just google that."

Dreadful news, and shocking that the life of one person may have been all that stands between the US and the abyss.

Can the legal types here suggest how a constitution or system could be so written or run  it cannot so easily be twisted and turned according to ephemeral whim, but not also be so rigid as to be turned into a tablet of stone that it becomes an archaic impediment to what makes sense?

The key reason would we are heading into a hotly contested election which, especially if it includes postal ballots, will become even more so. Neither side is likely to accept the outcome with several prominent figures on both already stating as much. It highly likely the outcome end up on the SC's lap. In which case, an even number of SC justices leaves open the possibility for there being no deciding vote and complete paralysis. 

Whether the Dems or the GOP get to choose the appointee, it seems vital one is chosen ASAP. Given Trump is in power at the moment, he seems to have more right than anyone else to preside over that. I get that people are rightly concerned about the prospect. But its worth remembering the guy has a liberal streak, is by no means a classic conservative, and if you put to one side his bellicous language on many issues he is probably left of where most Democrats were just a decade or two ago. He may yet surprise with his ability to choose a middle of the road candidate.

Hahahahahahaha .... hahahahahaha

And I specifically meant why anyone would be discussing expanding the court if it was not constitutionally possible.