snafu Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 24 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: McGann and Bolton come to mind The Constitution does not state a specific number of justices. I would not agree with adding justices but if the Senate, House and Executive branch all go Democrat then you could make the same argument Republicans are making, namely that the people through the elective process are telling their government what they want on the court. I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that. I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Mark Davis? Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 2 hours ago, snafu said: I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that. I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks. This all stems back to 2016 with Merrick Garland. Conservative Justice Scalia passed and with 8 months before the election, the Dems proposed Garland as his replacement. Garland is much more centrist than some of the more liberal judges Obama could have picked. The rights justification is you should not pick a Supreme Court Justice in a Presidents last term. Republican Lindsey Graham said it best: "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right." Before Scalia died the court was 5-4 in favor of conservatives with 2 justices on the right that would cross over to the left at times. Garland would have moved the court more left, but that's because Scalia was so far right. Garland was more of a compromise pick. Fast forward to 2020, one of the most liberal judges dies, RGB, and all of a sudden the right want to change the fake rule they made in 2016 and be hypocrites to fill a seat. Filling the seat will give the court a hard right favorite 6-3. The idea of packing the court isn't to make a one party system, it's to rebalance the court, especially with how hypocritical the right is. Packing the court isn't discussed at all today if Garland was given the proper hearings in 2016. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 34 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: This all stems back to 2016 with Merrick Garland. Conservative Justice Scalia passed and with 8 months before the election, the Dems proposed Garland as his replacement. Garland is much more centrist than some of the more liberal judges Obama could have picked. The rights justification is you should not pick a Supreme Court Justice in a Presidents last term. Republican Lindsey Graham said it best: "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right." Before Scalia died the court was 5-4 in favor of conservatives with 2 justices on the right that would cross over to the left at times. Garland would have moved the court more left, but that's because Scalia was so far right. Garland was more of a compromise pick. Fast forward to 2020, one of the most liberal judges dies, RGB, and all of a sudden the right want to change the fake rule they made in 2016 and be hypocrites to fill a seat. Filling the seat will give the court a hard right favorite 6-3. The idea of packing the court isn't to make a one party system, it's to rebalance the court, especially with how hypocritical the right is. Packing the court isn't discussed at all today if Garland was given the proper hearings in 2016. 29 times a justice seat has come empty in an election year 29 times the Pres has nominated a replacement- every , single, time Whether they get confirmed or not depends on the candidate and the preference of the Senate 19 times, the Senate was the same party as the Pres 17 were approved before the election and 2 were not but not for unique circumstances what played out in 2016 and 2020 is tacking what has happened for the life of the Supreme Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, spartacus said: 29 times a justice seat has come empty in an election year 29 times the Pres has nominated a replacement- every , single, time Whether they get confirmed or not depends on the candidate and the preference of the Senate 19 times, the Senate was the same party as the Pres 17 were approved before the election and 2 were not but not for unique circumstances what played out in 2016 and 2020 is tacking what has happened for the life of the Supreme Court Which is why it was odd McConnell said we're not going to hold hearings on Garland. Never has the Senate flat out refused hearings. Their excuse was it was an election year. Just look at Graham's quote. Mitch created a rule, he should stick by it. Here is Graham's clear articulation of the Mitch rule: “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." Part of the election will be a referendum on that and a sweep for Democrats shows the American people want a Supreme Court packing. To be clear, I think Trump should get to nominate a judge and the Senate should give their advice and consent. However, Obama should have had that same chance. Edited October 10, 2020 by Backintheday544 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 5 hours ago, snafu said: I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that. I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks. No one genuinely cares about 95% of the principled positions we argue about. It's all about what's politically convenient at the moment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rob's House said: No one genuinely cares about 95% of the principled positions we argue about. It's all about what's politically convenient at the moment. Most of the left is basically nihilist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: Most of the left is basically nihilist. It's not just the left, but it's not a "both sides" situation either. Liberals are heavy on emotion and narrative and light on facts and principle. There's a reason most authoritarian regimes that have committed mass atrocities have arisen from collectivist movements. The only underlying principle that is absolute is that their side is right, no matter what their side represents. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Which is why it was odd McConnell said we're not going to hold hearings on Garland. Never has the Senate flat out refused hearings. Their excuse was it was an election year. Just look at Graham's quote. Mitch created a rule, he should stick by it. Here is Graham's clear articulation of the Mitch rule: “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." Part of the election will be a referendum on that and a sweep for Democrats shows the American people want a Supreme Court packing. To be clear, I think Trump should get to nominate a judge and the Senate should give their advice and consent. However, Obama should have had that same chance. You're only going back 1 term. The exact same scenario played out in the opposite direction with previous presidents and senates. The current crisis was caused by Democrats who used the nuclear option despite being warned that it can used against them. It's recent history, but the Democrats are once again being short-sighted. WHEN the republicans impeach, pack the SC, and threaten the 25th amendment, we'll see more whining about unfair treatment from the left in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 People stayed home or voted for 3rd party candidates. And that won't happen this year. It really is just that simple. Some of you act like there was this insane win for Trump in 2016 when the reality is that 70,000+ votes across 3 states won the election for Trump. I get it. I see Trump voters and the "Trump trains" out there, too. They're desperate. That's fine. They're the vocal minority. America in 2016: " Fool me once, shame on you." America in 2020: "Fool me twice, shame on me." The country won't shame itself this time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: People stayed home or voted for 3rd party candidates. And that won't happen this year. It really is just that simple. Some of you act like there was this insane win for Trump in 2016 when the reality is that 70,000+ votes across 3 states won the election for Trump. I get it. I see Trump voters and the "Trump trains" out there, too. They're desperate. That's fine. They're the vocal minority. America in 2016: " Fool me once, shame on you." America in 2020: "Fool me twice, shame on me." The country won't shame itself this time. I voted third party in a critically tight swing state last time and won’t this time. Not happy to help give the Dems the seat, and in fact loathe mich of the Dem platform and especially the AOC wing, but Trump and Trumpism has to go. I’d like to purge Gaetz and Graham and the whole lot of unprincipled swamp things that latched on to Trump. It could give the Dems a 5-8 year run but the Reps need to create a more principled opposition party that speaks to the working person’s advantage. Demographically the Reps have a chance—a chance—to go after the Latinx vote, perhaps by focusing on pathways to legal immigration and citizenship and abandoning their anti immigrant rhetoric. If they don’t win a good portion of that demo, the debate in the US is going to shift to socialism vs centrism (like EU politics) and no longer be socialism vs capitalism. Edited October 10, 2020 by shoshin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 6 hours ago, unbillievable said: You're only going back 1 term. The exact same scenario played out in the opposite direction with previous presidents and senates. The current crisis was caused by Democrats who used the nuclear option despite being warned that it can used against them. It's recent history, but the Democrats are once again being short-sighted. WHEN the republicans impeach, pack the SC, and threaten the 25th amendment, we'll see more whining about unfair treatment from the left in the future... This never happened in a prior term. As to the nuclear option, Democrats waived the filibuster for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. They did not use it for Supreme Court nominations. The Republicans are the ones who used the nuclear option for the Supreme Court. Doing so paved the way for packing the court by the Dems after 2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 17 hours ago, snafu said: I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that. I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks. ...so when institutions like the Electorate College, SC appointments et al do NOT fall your way, you tip your hi-chair over screaming "foul" and demand a change of the rules....so we change the rules and down the road the opposing party is faced with these same dilemmas, demanding rules change...ANSWER from party in charge?..."everything is just fine......forget it"......sound about right??............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 18 hours ago, snafu said: I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that. I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks. I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise. But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over. As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following: The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate. If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch. How that would look will have to be seriously considered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise. But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over. As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following: The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate. If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch. How that would look will have to be seriously considered ...LOL my good friend....."two party system" is code for "Good 'ol Boyz Clan Protectionism"...Trump exposed that fraternity.....proclamation of the US as the "world's greatest democracy" is a ruse......in your college days, didn't you promise her, "I WILL call you tomorrow"......fallacious as "doing the people's business".....535 parasites whose SOLE goals are self aggrandizement and PERSONAL enrichment.....kind of like finding a poor(COUGH) Union official.....ever wonder when a "term limits proposal" surfaces?....... a/k/a "bite the hand that feeds you"?........YAWN........ Edited October 10, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 hours ago, oldmanfan said: I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise. But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over. As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following: The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate. If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch. How that would look will have to be seriously considered The people are saying what their techno overlords have told them to think. They're just ratifying the totalitarian groupthink already in place -- Puerto Rico, DC Statehood, electoral college goodbye, packing the Court. So long republic; we couldn't keep it. They slipped up with Trump the first time because they didn't think he had a chance. Unless there's a wave of silent anger at the massive loss of liberty and respect for the dignity of the common man and innocent life, it's welcome to Venezuela. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 2 hours ago, oldmanfan said: I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise. But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over. As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following: The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate. If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch. How that would look will have to be seriously considered Plurality politics make for strange results. You’re seeing it within the Democrat party this year. I’m not 100% sold on third or fourth or fifth parties. People already complain that the President didn’t win the popular vote. With third parties you’d see a lot of backroom dealmaking. As for packing, I’d say a couple things: (1) using the Garland “wrong” (and I didn’t like what happened back then) as justification for packing the Court is juvenile and it really doesn’t look into the future of recrimination on this issue. Some day we would have 27 Justices based on past partisan transgressions. (2) if Biden wins, he will get his chance at likely two appointments in his 4 years. One of them might be Thomas, irony of ironies. Why bother to pack the Court? (3) packing the Court might be within the President’s power, but overreach has political blowback consequences. (4) Even what would appear to be a 6-3 conservative majority doesn’t always see results. Roberts isn’t a stalwart conservative by any means. Gorsuch is up in the air, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: Plurality politics make for strange results. You’re seeing it within the Democrat party this year. I’m not 100% sold on third or fourth or fifth parties. People already complain that the President didn’t win the popular vote. With third parties you’d see a lot of backroom dealmaking. As for packing, I’d say a couple things: (1) using the Garland “wrong” (and I didn’t like what happened back then) as justification for packing the Court is juvenile and it really doesn’t look into the future of recrimination on this issue. Some day we would have 27 Justices based on past partisan transgressions. (2) if Biden wins, he will get his chance at likely two appointments in his 4 years. One of them might be Thomas, irony of ironies. Why bother to pack the Court? (3) packing the Court might be within the President’s power, but overreach has political blowback consequences. (4) Even what would appear to be a 6-3 conservative majority doesn’t always see results. Roberts isn’t a stalwart conservative by any means. Gorsuch is up in the air, as well. I agree. I would leave the court as is. Roberts is sensitive about his legacy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 Just now, Jaraxxus said: Biden won't serve out his term if elected. He's a placeholder for a year and then it's president knobshiner. Having kids, I’ve learned that I’m able to see the future, and it is always disappointing when I see the worst — and it comes true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) It wasn’t a silent majority that won Trump the Presidency. He barely won in the first place. Most people thought Hillary would win and probably (this is conjecture) preferred her over Trump, but wouldn't go out and "hold their nose" and vote because they thought there was no need. You say what "you've seen." That's nice. It's also cherry picking. Trump voters are naturally loud and obnoxious (sorry but the politically active ones just are)... that doesn't mean they represent even close to a majority. What you're seeing is sheer desperation clinging to a cult of personality. The rest of us might not be out there loud and obnoxious... it's because we're just clenching our teeth bracing and hoping we can make it another couple months of a horrible Presidency without too much more damage. My in-laws are pretty adamant Trump supporters and I can tell even they see the end. It's just better if you start coming to terms with it. Edited October 13, 2020 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts