Breaking Judicial Norms: A History. A Democratic Senate pattern, from Bork to the filibuster rule.

Wall Street Journal ^ | September 20, 2020 | WSJ Editorial Board

[karpov]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is widely reported to have told his Democratic colleagues on Saturday that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans confirm a Supreme Court nominee in this Congress. He means this as a threat that Democrats will break the filibuster and pack the Court with more Justices in 2021 if they take control of the Senate in November’s election.

So what else is new? Democrats have a long history of breaking procedural norms on judges. While packing the Court would be their most radical decision to date, it would fit their escalating pattern. Let’s review the modern historical lowlights to see which party has really been the political norm-breaker:

• The Bork assault. When Ronald Reagan selected Robert Bork in 1987, the judge was among the most qualified ever nominated. No less than Joe Biden had previously said he might have to vote to confirm him. Then Ted Kennedy issued his demagogic assault from the Senate floor, complete with lies about women “forced into back-alley abortions” and blacks who would have to “sit at segregated lunch counters.” Democrats and the press then unleashed an unprecedented political assault.

Previous nominees who had failed in the Senate were suspected of corruption (Abe Fortas) or thought unqualified (Harrold Carswell). Bork was defeated because of distortions about his jurisprudence. This began the modern era of hyper-politicized judicial nominations, though for the Supreme Court it has largely been a one-way partisan street.

No Democratic nominee has been borked, to use the name that became a verb. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose left-wing legal views were obvious upon her nomination, received a respectful GOP hearing and was confirmed 68-31 with nine GOP votes. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, Stephen Breyer 87-9, and Elena Kagan 63-37.

[karpov]

full article

[hal ogen]

Never trust or rely on DIMS / LIBS . Crush them at every opportunity . To do otherwise is to be weak and naive .

[2banana]

Democrats have used the courts to force their demented socialism down the throats of America since the 1960s.

They know the Frankenstein they have created will now be used against them.

And must stop it at all costs.

[fireman15]

I have found that archive today is a most useful site.

[GaryCrow]

They'll do it anyway no matter if the republicans fill the seat or not. All we'd end up doing by waiting is possibly swapping a conservative justice for another RBG, then they'd end the filibuster and expand the court anyway.

We can't afford to let them bluff us out of filling this seat, it's got to happen now.

[chiller]

Dream on Chucky....an R majority ain’t gonna’ go for it.

[PGR88]

THe problem is that SCOTUS has become another law-making body.

The growth of Fed.gov, and the decline in the power/status of Congress, and the trampling of the Constitution has meant judges now are law-makers

Thus, fights over appointments are becoming ever-more vicious, because of the power involved.

[marktwain]

Thus, fights over appointments are becoming ever-more vicious, because of the power involved.

Yes, precisely. It is all because of the horrible success of the Progressive philosophy, in which all power is demanded to be in government.

Progressives detest any limit on government power.

[LizzieD]

Ya gotta love that the evil Mitch McConnell WARNED them that if they got rid of the filibuster they would regret it, and soon, and they do. LOVE that Trump tweeted his thanks to Harry!!!

[Diana in Wisconsin]

We should ALL be sending Harry Reid big old bouquets of roses for his dumb@ssery! LOL!

I. Am. So. Loving. This! *HEART*

[DoodleBob]

I was commenting last night on Bork, on how in retrospect the Dems may have done this country a yuge service inadvertently in his case.

Justice Kennedy was the third choice after Bork. Many people were peeved that Bork never made it to the court. But Bork died on December 12, 2012. Thus, had we gotten Bork, we'd also have had an Obama replacement for him and a solid liberal majority for 4 solid years instead the squish we got and a Trump replacement for Kennedy.

Then we need to consider what Bork would have gotten us that we didn't get with Kennedy. We likely would have gotten Casey...that would be big. But I thought Bork was a closet statist...and there is good evidence that he may not have sided with the majority in Heller. If so, then not only would a SCOTUS Bork have been replaced by Obama, but perhaps he'd have gutted the palladium of the liberties of our republic.

I don't want to start a war over Abortion vs the Second Amendment. But in retrospect, getting "Borked" may not have been all that bad a thing.

[Chgogal]

Bump that!

[scrabblehack]

I thought he said he disagreed with the flag-burning decision.

[zeugma]

I’m fairly happy that Bork never got on to the court. His views on the 2nd Amendment were not quite what anyone but a statist could love.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

FACT

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I think they will fail.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

That was so good

[Truthoverpower]

I’m Sorry but this is only been a one-way street in terms of slander against judicial nominees

it is 100% from the Democrats against Republicans nominees

Did the Republicans even raise one tough question of Ruth Bader Ginsburg back when Bill Clinton put her forth and she was the head yes the head of the ACLU the communist lawyers union? No

Did Republicans during Barack Obama give any tough questions to Alayna Kagan or Sonia SotaMayor? No

And what do we get for our civility?

The attempted murder verbally , of justice Kavanaugh

The evil vileness of the Democrats during that confirmation last year was among the most shameless and depraved things I have ever witnessed in my entire life of observing politics

And it was Lindsey Graham speech and defensive Cavanagh toward the end which really I think change the tide and also completely changed my perspective on Linda

I certainly hope Republicans have not forgotten that and ready to put on their big boy pants and shut off Democrats cut them off at the knees !!! with any of these attempts this time

[DoodleBob]

And a statist would have trouble with the majority ruling on Texas v. Johnson. I agree with the majority but for different reasons.

First, flag desecration wasn't unheard of in Colonial times. If the Founders wanted that to be Constitutinally illegal, they'd have put it in there.

Second, flag burning isn't "speech" - it is destruction of one's own property private property. Specifically, if I buy a flag, it's my property. If I torch my flag, I'm not physically harming anyone nor am I destroying anyone else's property.

For SCOTUS to rule that it's ok for the govt to ban flag burning, it would be saying the govt can regulate ANY use of private property that someone finds "offensive." That's a dangerous slippery slope that, while the opinion doesn't use that reasoning, they landed in the right place.