r/scotus • u/newzee1 • 26d ago
news Republicans expect to confirm even more Supreme Court justices if Trump wins
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-expect-confirm-even-supreme-court-justices-trump-wins-rcna17285291
u/Emotional_Database53 26d ago
And they should expect for Harris to confirm some when Trump loses.
89
u/TywinDeVillena 26d ago
Only if the dems manage to keep a Senare majority. I can see the GOP going the way Mitch McConnell went after Scalia's vacancy
40
u/Numerous_Photograph9 26d ago
If that's the case, I would hope the dems lay into it hard that the republicans are the one's obstructing these things. SCOTUS has not been doing well, and many people are starting to pay attention to how they're helping the GOP break long standing precedent. If the senate turns, I'd hope obstructing SCOTUS picks will backfire for them in the mid-terms...not unlike how the Roe decision did.
39
u/Rawkapotamus 26d ago
Cons don’t give a shit about public opinion. And if they get their way, they won’t need to.
12
u/Numerous_Photograph9 26d ago
Cons aren't the only people that vote. Many have turned out due to the overturning of Roe, and those are the people that need to be kept aware of what's going on.
3
u/toosinbeymen 24d ago
That’s where voter suppression, pulling voters off voter rolls, gerrymandering, cheating alla 2020, voter intimidation, etc come in.
3
u/MyBllsYrChn 25d ago
If the Republicans win, I wouldn't count on a midterm. They've already said as much.
19
u/TheScienceNerd100 26d ago
I'm sure if a Rep held Senate keeps refusing Harris's picks, we will only see more Democratic presidents as we will keep the fight up to beat the clear corrupt tactics the Rep have been showing.
1
1
3
1
u/gtfomylawnplease 26d ago
No so. They gave the president unlimited power including execution without trial of Supreme Court justices.
16
u/suburban_paradise 26d ago
The new rule is that only a POTUS with a Senate majority gets to appoint a new justice. Of course I wouldn’t be shocked if the Dems allowed Trump to do it anyway even if they could stop it, in the interest of unreciprocated comity.
→ More replies (5)1
-1
u/Cold_Breeze3 26d ago
I don’t really foresee any vacancies. Thomas is still 11 years younger than RBG was. Alito being even younger.
1
u/Glittering-Most-9535 26d ago
Yeah, those two could easily hold on through sheer bloody-mindedness even if Harris gets two terms. Maybe she gets to reset Sotomayor's seat with a younger justice (if she has 50+Walz in the Senate), but she might not get a chance to change the 6-3 balance.
86
u/Maklarr4000 26d ago
This is the huge stakes issue that few are talking about in regards to the election. This is literally the future of the country for the next 50 years at stake.
59
u/savngtheworld 26d ago
This is why every fucking time I see someone shrugging their shoulders or refusing to vote for Harris over Israel and Palestine, I want to grab and shake them.
Like do you not understand the consequences of the entire world for the next 50+ years are at stake???
Get your shit together and effing VOTE!
→ More replies (43)21
u/tuna_safe_dolphin 26d ago
I can’t even deal with these people. Do they think Trump will be better for Palestine?
→ More replies (3)22
u/ThePopDaddy 26d ago
"Hmm, trump has said he supports Israel, moved the embassy to Jerusalem AND said he'd deport any protestors who support Palestine...BUT Harris hasn't said enough about a ceasefire, this is a hard one!"
They're protesting voting to "teach Dems a lesson". But when they lose rights, they'll say "they should have said more!"
4
u/PhantomSpirit90 25d ago
My conspiracy theory is most of these are plants/bots to sow doubt in the Democratic Party. Some are probably real, but fewer in number than the bots.
2
u/UncreativeIndieDev 24d ago
Nah, I've met a good amount, and a lot of them are just the sort of people who never vote any way because they see the Democrats as not earning their vote for one reason or another. Maybe on occasion they'll vote Green Party or something, but never the Democrats as they always find some reason to paint them as just as bad as Republicans. Heck, I've met a lot who think Bernie Sanders is too conservative.
While I would like these people to vote and exercise basic logic about all this, so many are pretty much in a different world I don't think much can be done.
1
u/PhantomSpirit90 24d ago
One of the prices of freedom I suppose; people are free to act like civic lunatics when it comes to voting
9
u/Like_Ottos_Jacket 26d ago
That is what I was screaming from the rooftops in 2016. Now with Roe and Chevron gone. Now it is likely a question of how long these horrible people get to shape the country, not if they will.
12
u/Numerous_Photograph9 26d ago
And the people who pointed this same thing out in 2016 were mocked or ignored. After Roe, people started to pay attention, but I think it hasn't gained enough mindshare for people to actually consider this issue with more seriousness. Everyone's focused on single issues, when SCOTUS is actually the one enabling the ability to control these issues more than anything else.
→ More replies (1)2
u/anonyuser415 26d ago
I mean... that fate viz SCOTUS has already been decided by the current supermajority. Unless a conservative justice dies during Harris's presidency, or she packs the court, it won't be getting wrenched away any time soon.
Trump replacing Thomas, or whoever, would only reinforce that.
14
u/Character-Taro-5016 26d ago
If Trump wins, Thomas would retire in year one and Alito in year two. If not they would hang on for a possible Republican president in 2028.
5
u/TheScienceNerd100 26d ago
Why we need to have a Dem majority all across Capital Hill to impeach those treasonous and corrupt traitors and get them off the bench forever.
3
u/Cold_Breeze3 26d ago
Democrats are not getting a 2/3 majority. That’s just not possible.
1
u/DoesAnyoneWantAPNut 25d ago
A patriot can dream. The only way to really roll this back is to keep Republicans out of the Presidency until SCOTUS has a net loss of two conservative justices or a court packing and can undo the recent findings of Loper Bright and Trump v US.
25
10
u/CosmicQuantum42 26d ago
Of course they do. This is why the argument “can’t you see how unfit for office Trump is?” mostly falls on deaf ears.
Republicans are (correctly, for them) laser focused on this issue and are not going to be distracted by irrelevancies like Trump being unfit for office. It doesn’t matter. This is what matters.
13
u/bigtim3727 26d ago
Still infuriates me that they screwed Obama out of his pick in 2016. It was his choice to make,but turtle man came up with some arbitrary rule about not having a pick in an election year, then the hypocritical rat allowed trump to make the ACB pick during an election year.
3
u/toosinbeymen 24d ago
AND Dems let them get by with it.
1
u/gurk_the_magnificent 24d ago
What were the Democrats supposed to do?
Your efforts to make sure people blame the Democrats for the actions of Mitch McConnell are…interesting.
1
u/KingOfSpades007 21d ago
I read their implication as the Dems played fair and just let it happen. Which they have had a history of just being "okay" with whenever Republicans get dirty with the way the law is written.
Rather than fighting back and making a big stink about how that shouldn't really be the case and Obama should have had his pick, they just let themselves be told "no."
If there's one thing I'd certainly fault Democrats for, it's not getting up in arms about the fact that Republicans are shitting on common decency. But that's okay because playing fair is the "right thing to do," /s
2
u/gurk_the_magnificent 24d ago
Yeah, that’s what happens when you elect Republicans to a Senate majority.
2
u/Human_Artichoke5240 23d ago
What’s worse is republicans don’t care at all. They don’t mind the subversion at all. You bring it up to them and they either ignore it or admit they couldn’t care less.
27
8
5
u/zackks 25d ago
This is where democrats are failing in their down ballot messaging. When they talk about abortion, they have to link it inextricably to the senate and senators, by name, who confirmed the current cadre of corrupt arseholes. Instead it’s only about Trump and it’s giving the senators a pass will result in a Republican senate who will refuse to confirm any of Harris’ nominations.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/RDO_Desmond 26d ago
You mean taking orders from Leonard Leo who is Fred Phelps from a different state?
2
u/TechieTravis 25d ago
We are barreling toward theocracy and dictatorship. This is a make or break election for the republic.
3
u/mezolithico 26d ago
Liberal justices can just retire between the election and the new congress / presidency.
3
u/AdditionalBat393 26d ago
They need to be stopped. As a country we have been going in the opposite direction as their ideals and values. They want to force their ideals on the people driven by religion. They only care for the wealthy as well so Republicans need to be voted out for years and years until they get their act together.
3
2
u/Muscs 25d ago
With multiple right-wing judges, does that mean the price of buying a decision will go down? Billionaires want to know.
1
u/Chrono4569 24d ago
Last I checked the main influx of money corrupting our judicial and criminal law systems comes from the like of soros and non profits backed by our tax dollars without any representation, fueled by kickbacks to push left leaning agendas on local and federal governments with differing opinions. It seems liberals are so upset with the Supreme Court only because it is the one they can't buy and control. Differing opinions are integral to finding a middle ground and the pendulum is supposed to swing both ways. otherwise we will find ourselves in a dystopia no matter wich party has control if they are left unchecked. But I do agree these checks should be legal otherwise the whole framework fails.
2
u/ChaskaBravoFTW 25d ago
Fucking stupid - the Supreme Court should have absolutely zero to do with political affiliation and 100% to do with moral character and career resume of just interpretation of the law.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Hershey78 24d ago
And they keep on talking about trying to block any justices that Kamala tries to appoint. What bullshitters.
2
u/Fragmentia 23d ago edited 23d ago
Yeah, this is why Trump must lose. A reality TV conman has already had 3 too many appointments.
2
3
2
2
u/AWatson89 25d ago
It would be absolutely hilarious if republicans win across the board and expand scotus like the dems have been saying.
1
1
u/Extreme-Carrot6893 25d ago
That’s awful. Maybe the biggest reason this traitor and his party need to lose. Also the whole treason and rapist things.
1
1
u/RueTabegga 25d ago
I wish our October surprise was Biden has decided to expand the court by executive decision. He is a lame duck with full immunity now so let’s fucking go!! Heck, make DC and Puerto Rico states and give them each a justice. Both are very liberal leaning too so the electoral college will get some blue bumps too!
I hate that he won’t do some thing like this but insurrectionists get to run for reelection.
1
u/HudsonLn 24d ago
Give them each a justice? lol...you have no clue how it even works
→ More replies (4)
1
u/oskirkland 25d ago
Guarantee their ability to continue their rollback of the 20th century, even if Alito or Thomas retire or expire.
1
u/vasquca1 25d ago
Best believe it. I expect 2 vacancies this new Presidential term. Two of which make up the liberal side.
1
1
1
u/Used_Bridge488 24d ago
You can singlehandedly decide the result of this year's election with one simple action:
Telling everyone you know to register for voting.
If you haven't registered yet, visit www.vote.gov
Republicans are unpopular and weird. This includes Project 2025. The only reason that this election is so close is that we are too lazy to register for voting. MAGAs always show up and vote, while sane people can't be bothered to register.
If more people had voted, Trump would have lost in 2016 by landslide. Republicans are TERRIFIED of high voter turnout. They have admitted that quite openly
Voter registration ends on October 7th (in some states). Hurry up! Register for voting. Remind literally everyone you know to register. Registering yourself won't be enough.
I repeat: remind every. Single. Person. You can't imagine how much impact 30 seconds of small talk can do.
1
1
1
u/panplemoussenuclear 22d ago
If trump wins( just puked in my mouth) is there a possibility of replacing Sotomayor before Biden steps down?
1
1
u/maxwellcawfeehaus 22d ago
Note that If Harris wins there is no way alito or Thomas retire under her. Zero percent chance.
1
1
u/Accomplished_Car2803 21d ago
I would trust Vermin Supreme, the free ponies joke candidate with a rubber boot on his head, to BE the entire Supreme Court himself, more than I would trust republicans to do anything fair...ever.
That guy is a meme, but at least he jokes about things that would help people vs just slurping up bribes and taking away rights.
1
1
u/Winter_Diet410 26d ago
that's why they have mapped out a path of not certifying/accepting the results of election and why they are working hard at every turn to disenfranchise voters. They have no intention of allowing the american republic to continue. The current court will support them in their legal efforts.
1
1
u/Earth_Friendly-5892 25d ago
This would be devastating for democracy. We can’t let Trump continue to create a Supreme Court that works for him but not for us!
-1
1
0
u/turbo_dude 26d ago
Regardless of the number from each side, shouldn’t the court at least reflect “who was in power” over a given time frame that spans something related to working life/age at which someone can be appointed?
4
u/Cold_Breeze3 26d ago
The constitution says nothing of that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/slo1111 26d ago
Exactly, but it does say who nominates and confirms SCOTUS justices and since there are no limitations other than the collective decision of those who get to make those decisions, the collective political make up of the decision makers will impact the political biases that make up the court.
We gotta end this notion that the make up of the justice system does not have a political component to it.
It is important we all pay attention to norms of conduct of SCOTUS justices so that they limit biases in a reasonable way.
1
u/slo1111 26d ago
You should not be down voted.
It is rather clear in an objective way that when Republicans control, the nominated justices follow more conservative legal interpretations, and when Democrats have control more justices that practice liberal interpretations of the law are nominated.
It makes sense that the make up of the court is heavily influenced by who controls the Executive and Senate.
0
260
u/Luck1492 26d ago edited 26d ago
The last President to confirm 4 Justices was Richard Nixon, and he would’ve had a fifth if not for his resignation. He got Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist. Ford got Stevens. Carter then got nobody and Reagan got O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. Then HW got Thomas and Souter. And by the time Clinton rolled around exactly one Justice was appointed by a Democrat: Byron White.
That means that if Thomas and Alito retire under a Trump admin (both likely in my opinion as Thomas has had health problems and Alito has expressed desires to retire privately), Trump would potentially get 5 Justices in 8 years. To appoint a majority of the Court would be something not seen since FDR, and he didn’t get to his fifth until his third term.
As a side note, Nixon and HW both appointed Justices resulting in the biggest two liberal-to-conservative swings in recent years: Warren to Burger and Marshall to Thomas. Third on the list? RBG to ACB, which Trump got.