Today in Supreme Court History: September 21, 1981

9/21/1981: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is confirmed by the Senate, 99-0.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

99-0, when will we ever see that again?

[Dan Schiavetta]

We will see it if a Republican nominates a centrist Democrat, but not if a Democrat nominates a centrist Republican.

[Michael P]

More specifically, we'll never again see a Democrat nominate any kind of Republican to the Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They've done it before, quite reliably. I don't see why they'd stop now, particularly if they keep electing centrist Presidents. The last time a Democrat won the nomination by running to the left was in 1972.

[Michael P]

Democrats don't run to the left during the elections, they sprint to the left after taking office. Obama campaigned against an individual mandate for insurance, and promptly supported once in office. Biden ... well, Biden spent most of 2020 hiding in his basement and calling 2 PM lids on the days' events, so we can't really say he "ran" on much at all, but his tenure has been marked by governing to the left of what he previously stood for and even the things he says in public.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Individual mandate was a conservative Republican idea. The liberal idea was public option. (The really sensible idea, too far to the left for anyone to contemplate but the standard among other democracies, was single payer.)

The reason Biden has moved (incrementally) to the left is because he knew that no one can win the Democratic nomination by running as a liberal.

[Commenter_XY]

Something to keep in mind captcrisis....moving to single payer will create tremendous economic dislocation. The federal government probably does some things well; fund military, make laws (ok, they don't get either of these things right but I had to choose two things the feds do). I don't think that government will do very well at single payor....ostensibly delivering healthcare and improving patient outcomes. I just don't see that.

[Mr. Bumble]

See VA care, Medicare, Medicade.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Actually the federal government already does single payor and does it well. Medicare and the VA have been financially stable, dependable lifelines for millions, for three generations.

[Michael P]

Medicare is only financially stable by mooching off private payers. It pays fractionally above the marginal cost of its patients, but not enough to cover fixed overhead costs. That's why, ironically, lots of doctors tend to not accept it in places where a large fraction of the public use Medicare.

The military vets I know tend to avoid the VA if they have any choice.

[defaultdotxbe]

Exactly. No one chooses to be on Medicare or VA, they end up there because they have no other choice.

I ended up on Medicaid for a while after the ACA expansion, in 18 months I never got to see a doctor because no one was taking new Medicaid patients.

[Commenter_XY]

captcrisis....also wanted to say: Hallelujah for the damned edit button!

[Dan Schiavetta]

If they don't install an edit button around here, eventually there will be a disaster. (Like in 2006 when a movie theater was showing "Flags of Our Fathers" and the "L" fell off the marquee, and it was hours before anyone inside realized it.)

[Mr. Bumble]

Will the White House follow suit and install an edit button on Biden and PBJ II?

[John F. Carr]

Bill Maher had a good segment on the difference between Democratic and Republican campaigning. Republicans battle to define themselves as the most conservative, accompanied by videos of things being shot. Democrats are afraid to call themselves liberal.

George H. W. Bush probably gets the credit for scaring Democrats away from the L-word.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The “credit” goes to the so called mainstream media which repeated GHWBush’s lies without correcting them.

[Krychek_2]

And the funny thing is, on issue polling, most American voters are much more liberal than the GOP. They support abortion rights, they want single payer health care, they want a social safety net, they support gay marriage. One of the biggest con jobs in history was convincing mostly liberal voters that liberal is a dirty word.

[Mr. Bumble]

They want all of those things as long as someone else is paying for them.

[Krychek_2]

Which is entirely beside the point; the point is that they want liberal policies, while simultaneously thinking that liberal is a dirty word.

[Mr. Bumble]

The point is the disconnect between what they say and what they are willing to pay for. What you call it is irrelevant.

[Krychek_2]

They don't have to pay anything at all for abortion rights or gay marriage. Or, for that matter, gun control.

They may have to pay something for single payer health care, although that's not clear because the savings from having everything under a single umbrella would at least partially offset any costs.

But be all that as it may, you're just deflecting from my main point, which you seem to do a lot of around here.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This is true. They want nice things but the minute liberals point out it has to be paid for (for example, an individual mandate to pay for everyone having insurance), they stick their thumbs right back in their mouths.

[Mr. Bumble]

Liberals point to the "rich" as the ones who will pay for it.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

[Bob from Ohio]

"issue polling"

All issue polling is garbage, without exception.

Totally depends on way you ask and any other questions. Great Yes Prime Minister on the topic.

[Seamus]

Biden … well, Biden spent most of 2020 hiding in his basement and calling 2 PM lids on the days’ events, so we can’t really say he “ran” on much at all, . . .

Biden ran on not being Donald Trump, which turned out to be a highly effective campaign strategy. A lot of people would have voted for Incitatus if the Dems had run him against Trump.

[Vaclav Matthess]

Agreed. If a GOP president had nominated Stephen L. Carter, for example, we might have seen a 100-0 vote. Although he is mildly pro-life, so that could have caused dissent.
Thinking of that last sentence, I'm wondering if, post-Dobbs, there will be a de-escalation of the nomination process. Or if we'll have Dems vowing to reinstate Casey/Roe.
Finally, thinking of the host, what if either party nominated someone like Eugene Volokh?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Biden was set to nominated a Republican, pro-life judge, (Chad Meredith) but then Dobbs happened and he backed off. Wisely. Democrats have to start fighting fire with fire. Dobbs certainly escalated the process.

[Syd Henderson]

He was always going to nominate a qualified black woman.

[Michael P]

captcrisis moved the goalposts there. Biden was never going to nominate a conservative or Republican-associated jurist to the Supreme Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I moved them in the other direction.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well she appears to be Black, but she herself seems confused as to what a woman is. As for "qualified".....?

[Aemon McGarret]

That definition of a woman thing was stupid & lame when it happened. Along with the war on Christmas, war on meat, & "the Libs are grooming our children to turn them gay". Please stop the stupid regurgitation of mindless drivel. As for qualified....she has a very strong & public record. You could look it up. She is better qualified than Amy Comey-Barrett. More bumbling binary thinking.

[Syd Henderson]

We've even had two Chief Justices (White and Stone) who were appointed as Associate Justice by a President of one party (Cleveland and Coolidge), and Chief Justice by a president of the other party (Taft and Franklin Roosevelt.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"centrist Democrat"

A largely mythical creature. How many Democrats voted against the recent House abortion bill for instance?

Democrats are left and far left.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but never "extremists".

[Dan Schiavetta]

The House abortion bill would have been supported by maybe 20% of Americans. Opposing it is hardly a sign of being far left.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Opposing it is hardly a sign of being far left."

A 20% bill got all but 1 Dem vote. As I said, no Dem centrists at all. Left and far left.

[Dan Schiavetta]

McLeod v. General Electric Co., 87 S.Ct. 5 (decided September 21, 1966): Harlan reinstates injunction affirming NLRB decision forcing General Electric to negotiate with electrical workers' union even though some negotiators also were members of other unions GE was bargaining with (a business cannot be forced to bargain with more than one union at a time)