Why Does Harry Reid Think Clarence Thomas Is A

Should the current process for choosing a U.S. Supreme Court justice be changed and, if so, what changes should be made?

In my opinion, the worst thing that has ever happened to the judicial selection process was begun by former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who, despite warnings from then Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, did away with the long-standing Senate procedural rule requiring 60 votes to confirm both Supreme Court Justices and Federal lower court judges.Initially Reid put a rule into effect which required only a simple majority for confirming judges to the lower courts; McConnell warned him at the time that the second the GOP was able to win control of the Senate, he would initiate the same rule for Supreme Court Justices. And he did.The Constitution requires that judicial appointments be made by the President with advice and consent of the Senate, but specifies no rules or procedures for how the Senate must act.If I were in charge of changing the process, I would reinstate to 60 vote rule (for lower courts and the Supreme Court), and enact a statute so that it couldn’t be done away with on the Majority Leader’s say-so. This would go a long way towards ensuring nominees would have a modicum of bi-partisan support.While I was at it, I would also enact a statute requiring the Senate to act within a reasonable specified time after a nomination was presented, so as to prevent nominations from falling into a black hole in the manner of Merrick Garland and a number of lower court judicial nominees who were never given a Senate hearing and whose nominations just sort of died (which, by the way, is what led to Reid’s ill-advised decision to do away with the 60 vote rule in the first place). Just for the record, by the way, I’m a life-long Democrat but I was never a Harry Reid fan.

Do you think the US Supreme Court would be better off if judges had to be confirmed by 3/4 of the Senate instead of just a majority?

You know it used to be that way, that there were set rules in the Senate where to get something like this done you had to have a supermajority of 60 votes (IIRC it was at 66 votes at one point) to stop debate and have a vote on things. This forced presidents to carefully consider his appointments to ensure that they could get through these rules.We can thank one Harry Reid and Barack Obama for putting that one out to pasture. As a result we got Mr. Obama stacking the lower courts with his nominees, pissing off the Republicans who then held a SCOTUS nominee hostage until after the election, and then the Republicans changing the rules to get SCOTUS nominees done by a simple majority.

Are there actual documented cases of black Republicans being called " Uncle Toms" or "race traitors" by black Democrats?

Almost all black Republican face this kind of rhetoric...Generally, the  term "race traitor" has fallen out of use, but "Uncle Tom" has not.  It seems like the more powerful or influential the black Republican is the more of this racism of this kind they face.There are two politicians that have been called "Uncle Tom" by some black and white pundits.Here are the two Examples:Clarence Thomas   Ben Carson    BTW...  Collin Powell faced this blatant racism by the  Daily Kos :: News Community Action, Uncle Tom Powell Stumps for Massah Bush   I feel that it is important to give to definitions for this question. The first  is for racism.rac·ismˈrāˌsizəm/nounthe belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Next Uncle Tom Uncle Tom1.  a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)

If the Democrats block President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, will he nominate a more conservative Justice for the position?

Ain't gonna happen. If it doesn't look like the GOP will have the 60 votes, McConnell will go nuclear. As he told Harry Reid when he changed the Senate rules, “You're going to regret this.” No, Reid didn't apply it to SCOTUS nominees at the time, but he set the precedent that the Senate Majority Leader can change the rules at his whim.Now, there are ten Senate Democrats up for re-election in states that went for Trump. Do they hold the party line now and hurt their re-election prospects while triggering the nuclear option now? Or do they cross over now to give Gorsuch the 60 votes he needs while helping their re-election prospects while deferring the nuclear option for another day? It's not like they have their President's agenda to protect anymore. Nothing to gain and a lot to lose if they don't vote to confirm Gorsuch. If they don't get re-elected, the GOP will have 60 votes in the Senate in 2 years and won't need the nuclear option.Gorsuch will be confirmed either way. Thanks to Harry Reid, Trump may be able get as many as five conservative justices confirmed to the SCOTUS in his first term, one of them to replace Clarence Thomas, who will likely retire if the nuclear option is triggered, so he can be replaced by a younger conservative. Ginsberg, due to age and failing health, will likely be the next to go, followed by Souter. Kennedy is older but will likely hang around awhile to tutor Gorsuch, his former clerk.

Do you agree with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the Senate's Supreme Court confirmation process is a "highly partisan show?"

Yes. I don't often agree with RBG (I think we both might be free speech absolutists.) We have different philosophies, but she is absolutely correct in this regard. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political entity filled with partisanship. It is about judges who dispassionately apply the law as written. (I'm now sure you can guess where we disagree.)However, the Supreme Court has become increasingly political over the years due to Congress refusing to debate, argue, and legislate. Instead, Congress abdicates its policy making authority to the executive branch and leaves the political debate to the Supreme Court. Congress persons likely do this to avoid controversy and get re-elected because they can claim they “did something”and pass the blame to bureaucrats, the President (doesn't matter who), or the Supreme Court.If you have 15 minutes, please listen to Ben Sasse on this very subject.Here is a slightly controversial case and point. Citizens United. A much maligned decision to be sure (I agree with it because I'm a freedom of assembly and association absolutist), but could Congress correct that decision? The Answer is yes.Why don't they? Because that would require debate and agreement over what the freedom of association means and what free speech means. The opponents of Citizens United would have to use their words and win a debate over a core meaning of a right. They would have to reach a consensus and comprise. Sounds an awful lot like work. What's the value of that as compared to blaming the evil Supreme Court!!! The nerve of some of those people for making a decision consistent with what they view the law to require. Reasonable minds could disagree, but let's go with hysterics instead of debate. “We have to overturn this decision! Send us money!!! We have to be re-elected to not do our jobs!!” The only goal of many Congress types is to get reelected, not to engage in policy making. They may talk a good game, but actions speak louder than words. Where is the proposed constitutional amendment to correct Citizens United?