Some smoke to this potential fire:

https://youtu.be/mLB2LFRSR3c

Due to the toxic turn of this thread, I am locking it for awhile to let people cool off.

It's back open. Remember the rules and adhere to common courtesy and all that jazz.

So about that separation of powers thing...

We currently have the legislative branch fighting against the executive branch over who gets to control the judicial branch.

Semantics. What's currently happening is a war about which branch or party will get control over a supposedly independent and impartial branch.

Unfortunately the fire hose of controversies and scandals (deliberate or otherwise) tends to bury important stories that deserve their own attention. Two recent ones that stick out to me:

In addition to criminal negligence, family separation, rape, etc, now ICE is sterilizing immigrants. Don't you dare compare this administration to fascist regimes, though...

https://youtu.be/Xx24C3F0XEQ
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/913448209/whistleblower-in-georgia-claims-high-number-of-hysterectomies-at-ice-facility

And a Louisiana congressman threatens to murder protesters in the street.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/republican-clay-higgins-facebook-post-threat-armed
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-higgins/facebook-removes-gop-lawmakers-threat-to-drop-protesters-idUSKBN25T396

It does if the individuals in question merely tow the party line.  I think that's the concern that's being conveyed.  The legitimacy of a court is not dictated by the Constitution, but rather by the people accepting their authority.  Partisan behavior, and partisan appointments, completely undermine the court's legitimacy.

This was less pronounced in the lesser court's, because ultimately the supreme court was expected to mitigate inevitable partisanship and "incorrect interpretations of the law" so-to-speak.  The "nuclear" option Republicans took to reduce the number votes required down to a simple majority for supreme court appointees was already what many consider a fatal wound to the court's legitimacy.  It's still there... But it's bleeding out.

Unfortunately, the outcome becomes more grim when you factor in the leading party won neither the majority of votes in the Senate or the Presidency.  Republican senators also represent states that comprise a minority of the population.  This may not seem important, but if continuous high profile legal battles go against the will of the majority, that will be a catalyst for even more civil unrest than we've already seen.

And yes, I'm aware of how Democrats eliminated the filibuster, creating this awful precedent.  But that detail also ignores the historic levels of obstruction that Republicans levied against President Obama and the Democratic party when they were in power.  The government was essentially nonfunctional.  Fun anecdote, but I was a Republican at the time, and it was the racism and blind hostilety directed at Obama during that period that drove me away from party and set me on a more liberal path.  The filibuster subject is a bit of a trigger for me ;)

Anyway, I digress.  The point (at least the way I interpret it) is that there is no division of power, and no checks and balances, if all three are coordinating on a single agenda set by an outside party.  It's a flaw of the US political system in general that blatantly partisan behavior is rewarded so heavily.  The fault really lies in Congress though, and how members congeal into one of two entities.

@NightlyPoe

Biden did not make this rule. He said that it would be unfair to the electorate for one party to replace its aging justices during the lame duck session after being voted out of power, creating a situation where the partisan makeup of the court cannot change regardless of how the people vote. Surely you can see the difference.

I think if you talked to any liberal, they are going to say the exact same thing, except with the parties switched.  And I tend to agree.  Especially when you consider the history of the formation of the Federalist Society, as well as repeated conflict with unqualified candidates being nominated for federal judgeship.  But I digress, I don't really want into the quality of the judges themselves.  I more want to focus on the partisanship of the judges.  Routinely Trump appointed judges will side with him on cases, even when they are the only judges in dissent.

Also, I will skip over your assertions on the legality of the gun ownership and abortion, as I feel like that is a tangent for another post.

This could also be used as evidence as to how right leaning the court actually is.  Statistically, the justices are all more likely to agree with the majority vote, and all justices cross party lines from time to time.  In the 2018 season, which just happened to be the first one that popped up, after Kavanaugh and Roberts, the next two judges were Alito and Kagan in terms of "crossing the aisle".  All the other judges were effectively tied.

Similarly, liberals have the same mindset.  Just reverse the parties.

This seems a bit revisionist to me.  Supreme court justice appointments were meant to be bipartisan, but the filibuster was an option for most of US history.  Just because it was not needed, doesn't make it new.  While I don't know the exact history of its use for judicial appointments, I do know the opposition to judgeships was typically rare.  The significance of 2005 was actually that when Republicans (annoyed with Democrats blocking their judges) wanted to eliminate the filibuster, a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators banded together to prevent the Republican majority from enacting the "nuclear option".

I have vague memories of the political climate back in those days, as I was a pretty clueless teenager, so I'm not gonna assert whether the actions of the Republicans or the Democrats were justified.  But I think it speaks volumes as to how are political climate has changed, that back in 2005 a bipartisan group of the senators crossed party lines to save the filibuster and ensure a semblance of bipartisanship in judicial appointments.  No one was there to save us this time.

It is not about Gorsuch's voting record, or whether or not he was qualified.  It's a perception thing.  I will admit I haven't hated Gorsuch as a judge.  But it's more about the population opinion writ large.

No, I'm asking for bipartisan judges.  I don't want revisionists.  I don't want judicial activism.  I want neutral reliable judges that I can trust to interpret the law fairly.  This requires both parties working together.  Asserting that Democrats will only vote for "bad" judges is the partisan statement.

And to be clear, regarding the civil unrest bit, this is not a threat, nor am I saying I am about to go to flip over a car in rage.  This is merely an assertion that if minority rule presses its values onto a majority population... that can only go on for so long before people stop trusting the system entirely.  It's not really a question of "Who has the right to rule?" as it is a question of "Why do they have the right to rule?".  The basis of the US distribution of power is not based on majority, but based on weighted representation.  Representation that heavily skews in favor of some populations over others.  This inequality is likely the seed of the anger that permeates many Americans right now.

You can disagree with their conclusions and ignore half of the US all you like, but that doesn't make them agree with you.  If the president, or the party in charge, does not act in a way that is perceived to be for the people, and is seemingly only courting the people who voted for him/her, then the simple next step is for someone to question their legitimacy.  Even a president that was voted in by a majority could still be questioned, but it's a harder argument to make when the process seems fair.

I think I already adequately addressed this, but I will reiterate that Chuck Schumer did not "create" the filibuster.  It was always an option.  I can't speak for whether or not it was an overreaction or justified.

This is hard to quantify and compare, but my most recent memory of the House impeachment inquiry vs the House Benghazi probe suggests otherwise.  Republicans in the house acted like children when Democrats literally followed the procedures that were set by Republicans.

To be clear, I am referring to unjustified hostility.  It's entirely possible to disagree with Obama without being racist.  My journey is purely anecdotal, but I am not talking about "ridiculous hair triggers".  I have had family and former friends say absolutely disgusting things about Obama that could only be described as racist.  And the sad thing was, they thought they did not have a single racist bone in their body.  They were just regurgitating talking points they heard from other people.  Many of them are deeply religious people who tend to think of themselves as "morally" superior, and that god would "protect them from evil thoughts".  So obviously, believing Obama was a "muslim terrorist antichrist who had infiltrated our government" was totally not racist to them.

And no, I do not think that all or even most Republicans think this way.  But there is a sizable block of the Republican party that is racist and uses their influence in the party to push their agenda, by convincing the "good" people I used to associate with of absolutely abhorrent things.

Again, I do not think all Republicans are racists.  But being exposed to that was the push I needed to leave the party.  Not really relevant to this conversation, so I apologize for the tangent.

I think this is another example where a liberal would say the exact opposite.

I think the tl;dr of this whole post is that opposing sides are convinced they are right.  This is why we need bipartisan appointed judges, so we can trust that even when our side loses, that ultimately justice is being served.  I don't have any good solution beyond raising the bar for appointment to a super majority.  If a dead-locked congress can't get anything done, let the president appoint a temporary judge for as long as Congress cannot make a decision.  It's still open for corruption, but then at the very least, the winner of the nationwide election is making the call.  Maybe the fear of ceding the pick to the president might be enough to make congress actually work together a bit more.

Ultimately though, I think the only worthwhile panacea would be reducing the hostility and extreme partisanship in the US.