SCOTUS: Now 1/3 Illegitimate

After a 52-48 vote, concern troll from Maine the only senator crossing party lines (Manchin did last time FOR Kavanaugh), Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed. The smart move would have been to quietly take the statutory and constitutional oaths. 

But, she went another way. Like the super spreader event while RBG wasn't even buried yet, a partisan celebratory event with her taking part occurred. Thomas was on hand to give her the constitutional oath and then she posed in that balcony scene. (Roberts Tuesday morning gave the judicial oath, required by statute, and now she can officially do her duties.) She CHOSE to do this. She joined the Republican effort to packed the courts, going along with Trump, down to blocking COVID legislation. The Senate confirmed her and won't be back until after the election. 

Showing some sense of timing, as she was being confirmed, the Supreme Court handed down another election ruling. The result -- rejecting a request to expand time to count ballots in Wisconsin -- was far from surprising.  On the merits, it isn't clear if the result is even totally horrible though Kagan's strong dissent (for the liberals) is convincing.  OTOH, Kavanaugh's all in concurrence, even citing Bush v. Gore (which he helped bring back along with two of his colleagues), is something.  

The opinions (Roberts had a brief statement differentiating between leaving a state court ruling in place; Gorsuch had a longer concurrence to preach judicial restraint ... at least here) provide more detail than other cases on the "shadow docket," but bottom line there isn't a decision for the Court here.  Alito and Thomas didn't join any of the written opinions.  So, basically, we still are waiting a clear opinion of the Court on these matters. Kagan provided a strong loyal opposition sentiment.  We shall see what the the balcony gal does.

Sherman reached Grant and said to him, “Well, Grant, we’ve had the devil’s own day, haven’t we?” Grant looked up. “Yes,” he said, “Lick ‘em tomorrow, though.”

Anyway,  as Gravedigger/Moscow Mitch gleefully crows about his victory here, there really seems to be a poke the bear moment here. It just is all too much.  But, Dems need to win and then need to do something.  Nothing for sure there.  Court reform, and not just limited to expansion, is basic to the democracy now all the same. And, to cite one more Civil War bit, this is also my mood:

After Gen. Early's raid on Washington in mid-July, Grant advised Chief-of-Staff Halleck to see to it that Early was pursued by "veterans, militia men, men on horseback, and everything that can be got to follow," with specific instructions to "eat out Virginia clean and clear as far as they go, so that crows flying over it for the balance of the season will have to carry their own provender with them."

Oh, I can imagine the concern trolls about norms and how reasonable Roberts and company are being.  Sigh. 

ETA: Note, for example, this discussion by a strong Trump opponent and his continual leaning away from court expansion.  In my comment, I note the true breadth of the "switch in time" including FDR getting to pick a new Court anyhow.  References to Roberts and company being somewhat moderate to me doesn't get that breadth of the precedent there.  

This isn't the only concern. First, as noted there, the problem there was basically a felt need for the Court to catch up with the times. This ideological concern does come up now, but I am not aware of a similar belief that the whole confirmation process was broken back then. The "norm" against court expansion might have been different.

Finally, the essay connected to highlights his support of term limits, including the suggestion that somehow this can be done statutorily.  He would, for instance, use it as a warning -- accept the constitutionality of this or else.  But, it is hard for me to accept -- especially if it applies to current membership -- how that would work.  MAYBE, some new "office" can be crafted, but the current membership at least would have life tenure under the old dispensation.  Circuit riding is a red herring -- that was an additional job, not something that factored into life tenure.  

I guess I hope there is a statutory approach to have "senior status" that would now be involuntarily (the rub!), since an amendment is such an uphill battle, but seems a real stretch. Anyway, it only addresses part of the whole problem in front of us, especially if prospective. And, at best, it would be years until even the alternative would affect the current membership other than maybe Thomas.  I'm unsure how all of this would be a deterrence for more of the same in the future while the current beneficiaries stay in office.  At the very least, though this seems to be something "moderates" are loathe to bring up, a serious attempt to impeach Kavanaugh would have to be used there.  

I don't see trying to get Coney-Barrett for perjury because she lied about not knowing about the anti-gay nature of an organization she supported or something is strong enough for impeachment proceedings. It is weak enough that I fear abusive "revenge" in other cases later on. Kavanaugh might have enough problems, including financially, to be different.  Also, his nomination was seen personally tainted by enough people to that level as compared to the other two.  

Again, think on Biden's end, the commission idea makes sense. It might even be useful for the ultimate campaign -- changing the courts should be a careful process that at least has token bipartisan cover.  But, the noises of even some strong critics who still are rather cautious is bothersome.