US Politics 3

It feels like hideous luck that Trump got to appoint three of them. What are the chances of that, during any given four year period? The jammy, ugly, rotten banana split.

Peter Crisp wrote:I think we can all agree that the perfect US president would be Gaius Baltar.



The perfect President for a perfect America!

twitter.com/allcurledup/status/1521674563817558019

twitter.com/allcurledup/status/1521687598514716672

Jesus

Americans for some reason don't want free healthcare. They want to pay through the nose. They want to line the pockets of insurance companies.

Weird bunch.

Drumstick wrote:Americans for some reason don't want free healthcare. They want to pay through the nose. They want to line the pockets of insurance companies.

Weird bunch.

What makes you think they don’t want free healthcare?

Drumstick wrote:Americans for some reason don't want free healthcare. They want to pay through the nose. They want to line the pockets of insurance companies.

Weird bunch.

Unless it's a vasectomy.

Poor attempt at sarcasm, apologies. Doesn't something like three quarters of the country support single payer healthcare now? I know support for it has grown over the past decade (especially during and since Trump's term).

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:It feels like hideous luck that Trump got to appoint three of them. What are the chances of that, during any given four year period? The jammy, ugly, rotten banana split.

If you look at it purely statistically, there's a reasonable enough chance that any president will appoint multiple Supreme Court Justices. Including the incumbents, there have been 110 different justices, and 45 different presidents. So around two and a half SCJs per president. This includes nominations to the post of Chief Justice separately, I think, so William Rehnquist appears on the list twice. Only five Chief Justices served as Associate Justices prior to their appointment, and four of those were prior to the Second World War.

Obviously this skews a little bit when you think about term-time - some presidents served for four years, some for less, some for 8 and one even for twelve. So looking at the presidents of the modern era(post-WWII) that have served less than two full terms, let's see how many Justices they have each appointed:

Donald Trump[R] (2017-2021) - 3 (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barratt)
George H. W. Bush[R] (1989-1993) - 2 (David Souter, Clarence Thomas)
Jimmy Carter[D] (1977-1981) - 0
Gerald Ford[R] (1974-1977) - 1 (John Paul Stevens)
Richard Nixon[R] (1969-1974) - 4 (Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist)
Lyndon B Johnson[D] (1963-1969) - 2 (Thurgood Marshall, Abe Fortas)
John F Kennedy[D] (1961-1963) - 2 (Byron White, Arthur Goldberg)

So for less than two-term presidents, the average is bang on two, with a couple clearing more and a couple less. It's worth noting as well that all four of Richard Nixon's SCJs were appointed during his only full-term - none after his re-election in 1972. Taking the two-term leaders into account, you get an even clearer picture about who is working the court best:

Barack Obama[D] (2009-2017) - 2 (Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan)
George W. Bush[R] (2001-2009) - 2 (John Roberts, Samuel Alito*) *Alito is the judge who wrote the impending opinion that essentially revokes Roe vs. Wade
Bill Clinton[D] (1993-2001) - 2 (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer)
Ronald Reagan[R] (1981-1989) - 4 (Anthony Kelly, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor)
Dwight Eisenhower[R] (1953-1961) - 5 (Earl Warren, John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, Charles Evans Whittaker, Potter Stewart)
Harry Truman[D] (1945-1953) - 4 (Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, Sherman Minton)

So it's far from unprecedented that a president will get to nominate multiple SCJs over their time in office. Three is far from the top of the nominations league - it puts Trump 5th out of 13 in post-war Presidents prior to Biden - but what the statistics show is that Republican presidents are *much* better, especially recently, at packing the court. Since 1945, Democratic Presidents have installed 12 justices, while Republicans have managed 21. Granted, the nomination process has changed significantly over the years - for example extended confirmation hearings for SCJs were not common even as late as Ronald Reagan's time in office - but Republicans have adapted to the process much more easily, it seems to me.

Moggy wrote:

twitter.com/allcurledup/status/1521674563817558019

twitter.com/allcurledup/status/1521687598514716672

Jesus

I just spent a week in hospital and 7 nights stay, all meals, all meds, round the clock care and daily consultations and a further month of meds cost me 70 quid.

The ferocity with which some Americans defend their system baffles me sometimes.

EDIT; Not the people in the tweet, but in general.

Skarjo wrote:The ferocity with which some Americans defend their system baffles me sometimes.

Combination of not knowing any other system, being fed a diet of propaganda all their lives, not wanting to admit that the system is gooseberry fool, and for officials, enormous bribes.

RetroCora wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:It feels like hideous luck that Trump got to appoint three of them. What are the chances of that, during any given four year period? The jammy, ugly, rotten banana split.

If you look at it purely statistically, there's a reasonable enough chance that any president will appoint multiple Supreme Court Justices. Including the incumbents, there have been 110 different justices, and 45 different presidents. So around two and a half SCJs per president. This includes nominations to the post of Chief Justice separately, I think, so William Rehnquist appears on the list twice. Only five Chief Justices served as Associate Justices prior to their appointment, and four of those were prior to the Second World War.

Obviously this skews a little bit when you think about term-time - some presidents served for four years, some for less, some for 8 and one even for twelve. So looking at the presidents of the modern era(post-WWII) that have served less than two full terms, let's see how many Justices they have each appointed:

Donald Trump[R] (2017-2021) - 3 (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barratt)
George H. W. Bush[R] (1989-1993) - 2 (David Souter, Clarence Thomas)
Jimmy Carter[D] (1977-1981) - 0
Gerald Ford[R] (1974-1977) - 1 (John Paul Stevens)
Richard Nixon[R] (1969-1974) - 4 (Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist)
Lyndon B Johnson[D] (1963-1969) - 2 (Thurgood Marshall, Abe Fortas)
John F Kennedy[D] (1961-1963) - 2 (Byron White, Arthur Goldberg)

So for less than two-term presidents, the average is bang on two, with a couple clearing more and a couple less. It's worth noting as well that all four of Richard Nixon's SCJs were appointed during his only full-term - none after his re-election in 1972. Taking the two-term leaders into account, you get an even clearer picture about who is working the court best:

Barack Obama[D] (2009-2017) - 2 (Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan)
George W. Bush[R] (2001-2009) - 2 (John Roberts, Samuel Alito*) *Alito is the judge who wrote the impending opinion that essentially revokes Roe vs. Wade
Bill Clinton[D] (1993-2001) - 2 (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer)
Ronald Reagan[R] (1981-1989) - 4 (Anthony Kelly, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor)
Dwight Eisenhower[R] (1953-1961) - 5 (Earl Warren, John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, Charles Evans Whittaker, Potter Stewart)
Harry Truman[D] (1945-1953) - 4 (Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, Sherman Minton)

So it's far from unprecedented that a president will get to nominate multiple SCJs over their time in office. Three is far from the top of the nominations league - it puts Trump 5th out of 13 in post-war Presidents prior to Biden - but what the statistics show is that Republican presidents are *much* better, especially recently, at packing the court. Since 1945, Democratic Presidents have installed 12 justices, while Republicans have managed 21. Granted, the nomination process has changed significantly over the years - for example extended confirmation hearings for SCJs were not common even as late as Ronald Reagan's time in office - but Republicans have adapted to the process much more easily, it seems to me.

How the hell did Nixon manager to appoint four Justices during a term where he had, at most, 44 Republicans in the Senate?! Have there just been multiple generations of Democrat rubes?

I think it's worth mentioning that the Republicans stole Obama's third nomination, which then became Trump's first.

RetroCora wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:It feels like hideous luck that Trump got to appoint three of them. What are the chances of that, during any given four year period? The jammy, ugly, rotten banana split.

If you look at it purely statistically, there's a reasonable enough chance that any president will appoint multiple Supreme Court Justices. Including the incumbents, there have been 110 different justices, and 45 different presidents. So around two and a half SCJs per president. This includes nominations to the post of Chief Justice separately, I think, so William Rehnquist appears on the list twice. Only five Chief Justices served as Associate Justices prior to their appointment, and four of those were prior to the Second World War.

Obviously this skews a little bit when you think about term-time - some presidents served for four years, some for less, some for 8 and one even for twelve. So looking at the presidents of the modern era(post-WWII) that have served less than two full terms, let's see how many Justices they have each appointed:

Donald Trump[R] (2017-2021) - 3 (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barratt)
George H. W. Bush[R] (1989-1993) - 2 (David Souter, Clarence Thomas)
Jimmy Carter[D] (1977-1981) - 0
Gerald Ford[R] (1974-1977) - 1 (John Paul Stevens)
Richard Nixon[R] (1969-1974) - 4 (Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist)
Lyndon B Johnson[D] (1963-1969) - 2 (Thurgood Marshall, Abe Fortas)
John F Kennedy[D] (1961-1963) - 2 (Byron White, Arthur Goldberg)

So for less than two-term presidents, the average is bang on two, with a couple clearing more and a couple less. It's worth noting as well that all four of Richard Nixon's SCJs were appointed during his only full-term - none after his re-election in 1972. Taking the two-term leaders into account, you get an even clearer picture about who is working the court best:

Barack Obama[D] (2009-2017) - 2 (Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan)
George W. Bush[R] (2001-2009) - 2 (John Roberts, Samuel Alito*) *Alito is the judge who wrote the impending opinion that essentially revokes Roe vs. Wade
Bill Clinton[D] (1993-2001) - 2 (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer)
Ronald Reagan[R] (1981-1989) - 4 (Anthony Kelly, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor)
Dwight Eisenhower[R] (1953-1961) - 5 (Earl Warren, John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, Charles Evans Whittaker, Potter Stewart)
Harry Truman[D] (1945-1953) - 4 (Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, Sherman Minton)

So it's far from unprecedented that a president will get to nominate multiple SCJs over their time in office. Three is far from the top of the nominations league - it puts Trump 5th out of 13 in post-war Presidents prior to Biden - but what the statistics show is that Republican presidents are *much* better, especially recently, at packing the court. Since 1945, Democratic Presidents have installed 12 justices, while Republicans have managed 21. Granted, the nomination process has changed significantly over the years - for example extended confirmation hearings for SCJs were not common even as late as Ronald Reagan's time in office - but Republicans have adapted to the process much more easily, it seems to me.

This website is free .

Cora .

I'd still say he's a jammy, ugly, rotten banana split for getting three of them in four years, if that's 50% more than the single-term average!

Cuttooth wrote:

RetroCora wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:It feels like hideous luck that Trump got to appoint three of them. What are the chances of that, during any given four year period? The jammy, ugly, rotten banana split.

If you look at it purely statistically, there's a reasonable enough chance that any president will appoint multiple Supreme Court Justices. Including the incumbents, there have been 110 different justices, and 45 different presidents. So around two and a half SCJs per president. This includes nominations to the post of Chief Justice separately, I think, so William Rehnquist appears on the list twice. Only five Chief Justices served as Associate Justices prior to their appointment, and four of those were prior to the Second World War.

Obviously this skews a little bit when you think about term-time - some presidents served for four years, some for less, some for 8 and one even for twelve. So looking at the presidents of the modern era(post-WWII) that have served less than two full terms, let's see how many Justices they have each appointed:

Donald Trump[R] (2017-2021) - 3 (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barratt)
George H. W. Bush[R] (1989-1993) - 2 (David Souter, Clarence Thomas)
Jimmy Carter[D] (1977-1981) - 0
Gerald Ford[R] (1974-1977) - 1 (John Paul Stevens)
Richard Nixon[R] (1969-1974) - 4 (Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist)
Lyndon B Johnson[D] (1963-1969) - 2 (Thurgood Marshall, Abe Fortas)
John F Kennedy[D] (1961-1963) - 2 (Byron White, Arthur Goldberg)

So for less than two-term presidents, the average is bang on two, with a couple clearing more and a couple less. It's worth noting as well that all four of Richard Nixon's SCJs were appointed during his only full-term - none after his re-election in 1972. Taking the two-term leaders into account, you get an even clearer picture about who is working the court best:

Barack Obama[D] (2009-2017) - 2 (Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan)
George W. Bush[R] (2001-2009) - 2 (John Roberts, Samuel Alito*) *Alito is the judge who wrote the impending opinion that essentially revokes Roe vs. Wade
Bill Clinton[D] (1993-2001) - 2 (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer)
Ronald Reagan[R] (1981-1989) - 4 (Anthony Kelly, Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor)
Dwight Eisenhower[R] (1953-1961) - 5 (Earl Warren, John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, Charles Evans Whittaker, Potter Stewart)
Harry Truman[D] (1945-1953) - 4 (Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, Sherman Minton)

So it's far from unprecedented that a president will get to nominate multiple SCJs over their time in office. Three is far from the top of the nominations league - it puts Trump 5th out of 13 in post-war Presidents prior to Biden - but what the statistics show is that Republican presidents are *much* better, especially recently, at packing the court. Since 1945, Democratic Presidents have installed 12 justices, while Republicans have managed 21. Granted, the nomination process has changed significantly over the years - for example extended confirmation hearings for SCJs were not common even as late as Ronald Reagan's time in office - but Republicans have adapted to the process much more easily, it seems to me.

How the hell did Nixon manager to appoint four Justices during a term where he had, at most, 44 Republicans in the Senate?! Have there just been multiple generations of Democrat rubes?

I think it's worth mentioning that the Republicans stole Obama's third nomination, which then became Trump's first.

Nixon did have nominations (2 I think, but I can't be arsed checking) rejected.

But the answer is that things were not as partisan back then. The dirty tricks pulled by people like Mitch McConnell didn't happen, it was accepted that the President appoints Supreme Court judges and any rejections would have actual reasons.

Nixon arguably commited treason in the run up to his election, the Republicans were absolutely pulling whatever dirty tricks they could.

The Democratic leadership knew about this and bottled it when it came to letting the American people know the Republican party was trying to prolong a much hated war. I don't think it's unfair to say the Democrats have a prolonged history of acting against their, and their voters, interests.

Cuttooth wrote:Nixon arguably commited treason in the run up to his election, the Republicans were absolutely pulling whatever dirty tricks they could.

The Democratic leadership knew about this and bottled it when it came to letting the American people know the Republican party was trying to prolong a much hated war. I don't think it's unfair to say the Democrats have a prolonged history of acting against their, and their voters, interests.

Nixon did. The Republicans in Congress? No.

The 60s/70s was a weird time, the current Democrat/Republican lines were not as clear cut as the parties were still in the process of flipping. Nixon was a crook, but there were still decent Republicans back then and even a lot of the not so decent ones still had a sense of honour.

Bernie Sanders managing to find a way to get Republicans and Democrats to work together in a way Biden never could.

twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1521991775174500353

Congress United against workers rights.

Moggy wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:Nixon arguably commited treason in the run up to his election, the Republicans were absolutely pulling whatever dirty tricks they could.

The Democratic leadership knew about this and bottled it when it came to letting the American people know the Republican party was trying to prolong a much hated war. I don't think it's unfair to say the Democrats have a prolonged history of acting against their, and their voters, interests.

Nixon did. The Republicans in Congress? No.

The 60s/70s was a weird time, the current Democrat/Republican lines were not as clear cut as the parties were still in the process of flipping. Nixon was a crook, but there were still decent Republicans back then and even a lot of the not so decent ones still had a sense of honour.

Indeed. It also wasn't as clear cut as simply "Nixon has committed treason, let's tell the world about it," though that's exactly what he did. President Johnson couldn't publicly release the information he found out because it would have required him to disclose that the FBI under his administration's direction was illegally wiretapping phones during the 1968 peace talks. It would've publicly ruined the Democrats, too.

EDIT: I'm uploading a lecture about Richard Nixon's presidency to YouTube later if anyone's interested.

Personally I don't see anything undemocratic about lifetime political appointments to the courts

Cuttooth wrote:I don't think it's unfair to say the Democrats have a prolonged history of acting against their, and their voters, interests.

I don't think there is much overlap between the Democrats' interests and their voters' interests tbf

RetroCora wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:Nixon arguably commited treason in the run up to his election, the Republicans were absolutely pulling whatever dirty tricks they could.

The Democratic leadership knew about this and bottled it when it came to letting the American people know the Republican party was trying to prolong a much hated war. I don't think it's unfair to say the Democrats have a prolonged history of acting against their, and their voters, interests.

Nixon did. The Republicans in Congress? No.

The 60s/70s was a weird time, the current Democrat/Republican lines were not as clear cut as the parties were still in the process of flipping. Nixon was a crook, but there were still decent Republicans back then and even a lot of the not so decent ones still had a sense of honour.

Indeed. It also wasn't as clear cut as simply "Nixon has committed treason, let's tell the world about it," though that's exactly what he did. President Johnson couldn't publicly release the information he found out because it would have required him to disclose that the FBI under his administration's direction was illegally wiretapping phones during the 1968 peace talks. It would've publicly ruined the Democrats, too.

EDIT: I'm uploading a lecture about Richard Nixon's presidency to YouTube later if anyone's interested.

Most def babe

I'm certainly not disputing that things were less polarised in the 60s and 70s, Nixon resigned because Republican senators were going to carry through with impeachment proceedings after all, but I do question whether it's quite a romanticised view that Republican members of Congress at the time, or Republicans in general, were above dirty politics to get their way. I'll obviously concede to Cora's knowledge though!

OrangeRKN wrote:Personally I don't see anything undemocratic about lifetime political appointments to the courts

Cuttooth wrote:I don't think it's unfair to say the Democrats have a prolonged history of acting against their, and their voters, interests.

I don't think there is much overlap between the Democrats' interests and their voters' interests tbf

I think it could be argued that the Democrats have been much less effective at delivering for their voters since the Civil Rights era than the Republicans have for conservative voters. To the point that the typical Democrat voter now has much less influence on who runs the country and what happens in it than the typical Republican voter.

Republicans have been openly saying they're coming for Roe v Wade for decades and still the Democrats are caught by surprise and held up by their own supposed members.