Donald Trump Puts Third Justice on Supreme Court

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Tue Oct 27, 2020 at 10:13:34 AM EST
Tags: Supreme Court (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

With the fast Senate approval of Amy Coney Barrett, Unpresident Donald Trump has accomplished what conservatives have only dreamed of since the 1930's -- created a true conservative majority on the Supreme Court. (WSJ, paywall).

Like Justice Scalia, Justice Barrett is known as an originalist and a textualist—that is, she applies the Constitution according to her understanding of what its language meant when adopted, and when interpreting statutes she zeroes in on the text of legislation rather than the purpose lawmakers were trying to achieve.

Another sobering thought:

In the last 40 years, more Supreme Court justices have served after age 80 than in the previous 190 years combined.

We get the government we elect. Please vote and help deny Donald Trump another undeserved opportunity to sit at a desk in the oval office.

< Trump Chief of Staff: We Can't Control Coronavirus | WAPO: Trump Directed More Than $8 Million to His Properties >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Donald Trump Puts Third Justice on Supreme Court | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Luzerne (Pennsylvania) County (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by KeysDan on Tue Oct 27, 2020 at 03:18:38 PM EST

Board of Elections has filed a motion with the US Supreme Court for Justice Amy Barrett to recuse herself from the pending mail-in ballot extension case on which the Justices previously split 4 to 4. The lower Court, in this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, decision in favor of the 3-day extension would prevail unless/until the SC says otherwise.

Included in the motion is the following: The nomination and confirmation of a SC justice this close to a presidential election is unprecedented. As concerning as that is, what is even more troubling is the language President Trump has used in consideration of this nomination, linking it directly to the electoral season at hand, with implications for his own re-election, as seen in this example:

Trump predicted that the SC will be called upon to determine the winner of the presidential election and that whomever he nominates to replaced Justice Ginsburg might cast the decisive vote in his favor ..."I think this will end up in the SC. And I think it's very important that we have nine justices." Trump said. "It's better if you go before the election, because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling...it's a scam...the scam will be before the US SC/ And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation".

Of course, the Handmaiden will handmaiden.

The lawyer for Luzerne County (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Peter G on Tue Oct 27, 2020 at 03:40:12 PM EST

is an old friend of mine (going back to around 1981). He is a former Pennsylvania state appellate and trial judge. And a dual-degree graduate of Notre Dame (law and theology). (He is also a long-time friend of Martin Sheen's, who once gave him a bit part on West Wing as a lawyer arguing in the Supreme Court.) I can't wait to read this motion.


: The motion (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by KeysDan on Tue Oct 27, 2020 at 04:17:22 PM EST

reads very well.

This is (none / 0) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 27, 2020 at 02:28:08 PM EST

the biggest self own in a long time. The criticism is that the GOP wants to recreate the Handmaid's Tale. So conservatives are like hold my beer. Let's nominate a Handmaid because it will make liberals mad and are too idiotic to realize they just proved liberals right.

Will Biden/Schumer/Pelosi... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 10:34:49 AM EST

deliver a 15 justice Supreme Court? Or at least a 13?

If not, we better find leaders who will or holding the White House and both chambers of Congress won't be worth sh&t when any good they try to do gets shot down 6-3, or 5-4 with Roberts proving to be at least somewhat worthy of a robe.

IMO (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 11:20:38 AM EST

No Biden will not increase the number of Supreme Court Justices. Also, conservative Senators like Manchin will impede many progressive policies.

Sternly worded letters and appeals for bipartisanship will be the the usual Dem approach.


More on Manchin (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 12:11:38 PM EST

destroying any effort to get legislation passed.

But he could have Sen. Joe Manchin standing in his way.
The West Virginia Democrat told CNN that he would oppose his party's effort to get rid of the filibuster, a stall tactic frequently used by the Senate's minority party and that requires 60 votes in the chamber to overcome.

a$$hole


I have heard 4 (none / 0) (#6)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 10:39:14 AM EST

Yeah
The idea is to add enough that every appointment doesn't start a war because no one appointment drastically swing the court.

Or something like that. But I have also heard higher numbers.


Buttigieg's Suggestion (none / 0) (#9)
by RickyJim on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 01:29:52 PM EST

5 justices chosen by Republicans, 5 chosen by Democrats and 5 chosen by the 10 already chosen justices. I doubt this has any chance at all of happening. I would like to see something done to challenge the current acquiescence in the US of "Judicial Supremacy" over the legislature. Even Madison didn't think it was such a good idea, but he wasn't clear and consistent on what should be done. Adding more justices each time you simultaneously flip the Senate and Presidency to the other party doesn't seem to be the answer either.


It's a toughie... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 02:01:30 PM EST

how else can we protect any minority from a tyranny of a majority with control of the presidency and the legislature without a judiciary that is ultimately supreme? Our legislature and executive have done a lot of dirty that the judiciary has corrected, and a lot of dirty the judiciary failed to correct.

It's not perfect but I have no better idea...maybe Madison didn't either.


Add... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 02:05:38 PM EST

if the Republicans did not set a new record of hypocrisy with the Barrett appointment after what they did to squash Harland I would probably be opposed to expanding the number of justices.

But this is so unethical and egregious, and the appointments so lacking in any semblance of impartiality...I see no other alternative but to expand the court to attempt to right the wrong.


What he said (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 02:12:20 PM EST

It's the impartial view. It's why it will work.

There is an argument for a very large expansion. The more seats the more the process becomes apolitical. As it was always supposed to be.


I'd be open to a large expansion... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 02:21:51 PM EST

there's a lot more people, and a lot more diversity of people, then when we set on 9.

Make it 21!

And I mean they are Democrats, they will nominate and confirm what the rest of the western democracies call conservatives anyway lol. Just give me one Jeralyn Merritt or Peter G or Ron Kuby up there in a robe and I'll feel happily represented :)


The 9th Circuit appeals court (none / 0) (#14)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 02:58:39 PM EST

has 29 active justices

Didn't start that Way. In 1891 it had 2


And having expanded to that number (none / 0) (#15)
by Peter G on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 07:56:16 PM EST

it can no longer sit as a whole court. Even when it "goes en banc" for fuller reconsideration of a 3-judge decision (the norm for nearly all cases) they randomly pick 11 for the en banc panel. The Circuits that have 13 or 15 judges do all sit for en banc reviews. But not 29.


Is this a bad thing? (none / 0) (#16)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 07:59:12 PM EST

I read the wiki about Kennedy and Thomas saying it should be split.

Do you think it should be split?


And do you think (none / 0) (#17)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 08:04:32 PM EST

The best number of Supremes should be half that? 15 or so?

Just curious having no clue what the best number would be. But there is talk of more than 15 here and there. Which means nothing really.


Here's a bit from Brookings (none / 0) (#18)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 10:04:20 PM EST

MARCH 2, 2020
Should we restructure the Supreme Court?

: One thing this mentions (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 28, 2020 at 10:13:54 PM EST

That seems as important as the number is life time appointments. As a non professional this seems like a bad idea. For all kinds of reasons. One of which is there should never again be the sad spectacle that takes place with every death but more so with RBG. It just seemed wrong that her death was hardly a news item in competition with the replacement story.
Which is what we can look forward to if no changes are made.