U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

SpeedySucks

Well-Known Member
Messages
514
It's not that I don't reluctantly agree with you. I just hate to descend to their level.

I do too, and I haven’t been supportive of eliminating the filibuster or packing the court to this point, but it is clear that if the Democrats aren’t willing to play dirty, they’re just going to keep getting steamrolled. Maybe if the Democrats show that they are actually willing to go nuclear on the filibuster and the courts, the Republicans will back down rather than face an outcome that they don’t want.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
23,957
My concern with adding more justices to SC is that it will become a "increase by 2-4" each administration/majority. It is not sustainable. I think a better action is the limit the time on can serve on the SC. Lifetime appointment might have been ok in 1776 where life expectancy was lower than today.

Mitch and his cronies quietly over the last 3.5 years have been filling lower court justices with their choices. How many are left? I should probably know this without consulting Mr.. Google.

I dont know about getting rid of the filibuster. I need a better understanding of what it accomplishes-i think it is beneficial to both parties at times. Democrats need to be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I imagine if you asked many people who have a high school education they would be surprised that DC doesn't have representation. Or you could phrase a question what state or location is DC. They would answer Delware or Virginia. I think many would say Puerto Rico is a country. I doubt many people realize there are parts of the US that are territories.

I personally think the territories should be states (all of them) because they need representation. We fought a war for independence on the principle "no taxes without representation". We need to adhere to that principle

Just my thoughts about how Democrats should respond as we knew pendulums are in constant motion. Unless it gets permanently stopped in dictatorship
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,225
Well only states can have representation so there would have to be constitutional amendment to allow non states to have it or make all territories states
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,944
All I can say is the time for pearl clutching and decorous behavior from Democrats is well past.

The Republicans have shown over and over again that they are more than willing to play dirty and that precedent and norms mean nothing to them. They will use all legal means at their disposal to retain power for generations, if they can.

Democrats HAVE to respond. We don't have to sink to their level or exhibit the obviously hypocritical or cruel type of behavior that they do. We just need to use the legal means at our disposal. It's absolutely vital that we redress some of the structural disadvantages that we face electorally, or we will NEVER be able to consistently win, or hold, the representation we should have based on our numbers and voting power. This requires DC/PR statehood (and possibly more) and likely eliminating the electoral college.

Further, if a Biden Administration and Dem Senate happen, it's important that we GET THINGS DONE RAPIDLY. We need to make the case that the American government can start working for the people again. That we can make people's lives better or easier in meaningful ways. Trust in government is at an all-time low right now. That's what I feel is fueling so much of the "what the hell, I won't vote or put in a protest vote" or "maybe QAnon is right" type of behavior. If the Dems get in again, we've GOT to get things done, and fast. That requires eliminating the filibuster. It's now or never. We simply cannot afford to squander this opportunity if we get it, or have it taken away from us by McConnell's cynical maneuverings.

The courts are a whole other topic. There are many ideas for how to reform the courts, which I've posted about here before. Adding more judges is just the beginning, but a necessary first move. It really amazes me at this point, after the Garland fiasco and now the Ginsburg disaster, that any Democrat would have cold feet about this. For heaven's sake, we're talking about 2 STOLEN LIFETIME SEATS here and an entire 4 years' worth of court packing from the Trump administration (and this after more years of blocking Obama court appointees)! The Republicans have warped the federal judge approval process beyond all recognition--we cannot just sit back and accept this.

I highly recommend reading David Faris's book It's Time to Fight Dirty, which provides further information/argument on these issues. The book is short but informative.
 
Last edited:

TOADS

Toad whisperer.....
Messages
20,943
I am afraid, any way you want to slice it, this whole thing is one fcuking mess.....

Behavior and decorum have gone out the window...
 
  • Sad
Reactions: JJH

gkelly

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,102
It's not that I don't reluctantly agree with you. I just hate to descend to their level.

Would some of these changes require constitutional amendments?

If so, they couldn't be rammed through but could be accomplished enough states agree.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,006
Text RBG to 50409. I tried to do it, but I can't on this flip phone. It's real though. The comments on FB are up to "I'm #888,948" 11 minutes ago.

 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
23,957
Perhaps 2016 was the election of our lifetime and we missed the boat. Sorry
I think 2008 was the trigger point and probably one of the biggest election in terms of accelerating to 2016. How dare the country elevate a black man to leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world?

It set in motion the "normalization" of white supremacy. No longer were they going to be underground, it was time to remove the KKK masks and fight for the return of white supremacy.

2016 with a compenent woman, regardless of color, was about not allowing a woman especially following a black man. The "world will be saying men control your woman and the inferior races" laughing at us, we can't take it anymore-supremacists.

2008. Thats the catalyst for 2016. Fear of losing control all over again is driving 2020.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,225
All the woman had to do was go to some blue states. End of story. The fact is that trump being the republican nominee made Hillary LAZY!!!! She was lazy.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,359
I am trying hard to understand the logic of how both Scalia’s seat and now Ginsburg’s seat could be stolen.

I mean if the Republicans “had” to confirm Garland because it was Obama’s term than why exactly is it wrong for Trump to nominate and have someone confirmed during his term. You don’t get it both ways.
If Scalia’s seat belonged to you then Ginsburgs belongs to the Republicans.

The reality is that the Republicans had the votes in 2016 and had every right to say we won’t consent.

I would not be surprised if Clinton had won if they might have actually confirmed Garland which is why they held off the vote.

They have control of the Senate and Presidency Obama did not.

If the shoe was on the other foot I would expect the Democrats to nominate and confirm and I would figure it was the fair spoils of election results.

Yes you could all pack the courts but then there is nothing stopping the next Republican President from doing the exact same thing. Creating a further mess.

Now I think there absolutely needs to be some reforms with the court because this is ridiculous.

But really both parties should get together and come up with reform compromises that all can live with.
 

skateboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,837
If the Republicans ram through a confirmation (especially in the lame duck after they’ve lost the presidency and the Senate), then I fully support whatever measures Democrats take next year in retribution. This includes eliminating the filibuster, making DC and/or Puerto Rico a state, packing the Supreme Court with 2 or 4 more justices and adding hundreds of new justices to the lower courts, etc. If any of this terrifies Republicans, perhaps they should think twice about the consequences of ramming through an action that the majority of Americans oppose. The Democrats have laid down for the past decade while Republicans have obstructed and used every lever possible to gain power. It’s time for Democrats to flip the script and use the levers they have to even the score.
HELL YES!! :respec:
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
18,286
I am trying hard to understand the logic of how both Scalia’s seat and now Ginsburg’s seat could be stolen.

Agreed, it's (at best) one or the other. But IMO it's neither: both seats are the Republicans' to fill.

In 2016, Republicans held the Senate. They could have rejected all of Obama's nominees and wasted everyone's time. Instead, they said -- we're not confirming anyone. The line of reasoning they chose was unfortunate and is now coming back to haunt them.

Now there's a Republican president and a Republican senate, which is an entirely different situation. Of course, the president should nominate, and of course the Senate should confirm. Many people voted for Trump, despite many misgivings, for this very reason and this reason alone. This is the sweet reward for having endured the bitter pill of Trump.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,359
Agreed, it's (at best) one or the other. But IMO it's neither: both seats are the Republicans' to fill.

In 2016, Republicans held the Senate. They could have rejected all of Obama's nominees and wasted everyone's time. Instead, they said -- we're not confirming anyone. The line of reasoning they chose was unfortunate and is now coming back to haunt them.

Now there's a Republican president and a Republican senate, which is an entirely different situation. Of course, the president should nominate, and of course the Senate should confirm. Many people voted for Trump, despite many misgivings, for this very reason and this reason alone. This is the sweet reward for having endured the bitter pill of Trump.

Well Lindsey was stupid but Mitch very much talked about opposing parties. So he laid the ground work for it’s totally different if it’s our guy in the Presidency.

I think the Democrats would absolutely do the same thing in both cases and I would have had no problem with them doing so.

If Trump is super super smart he nominates Barbara Logoa, a Hispanic women from Florida.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,128
Agreed, it's (at best) one or the other. But IMO it's neither: both seats are the Republicans' to fill.

In 2016, Republicans held the Senate. They could have rejected all of Obama's nominees and wasted everyone's time. Instead, they said -- we're not confirming anyone. The line of reasoning they chose was unfortunate and is now coming back to haunt them.

Now there's a Republican president and a Republican senate, which is an entirely different situation. Of course, the president should nominate, and of course the Senate should confirm. Many people voted for Trump, despite many misgivings, for this very reason and this reason alone. This is the sweet reward for having endured the bitter pill of Trump.
Even Rick Wilson, the Republican Strategist, when interviewed on Australian TV last night said that if the Republicans confirm Trump's nominee, you are going to galvanise every moderate Democrat to get out and vote because abortion rights will become the issue.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,598
Agreed, it's (at best) one or the other. But IMO it's neither: both seats are the Republicans' to fill.

In 2016, Republicans held the Senate. They could have rejected all of Obama's nominees and wasted everyone's time. Instead, they said -- we're not confirming anyone. The line of reasoning they chose was unfortunate and is now coming back to haunt them.

Now there's a Republican president and a Republican senate, which is an entirely different situation. Of course, the president should nominate, and of course the Senate should confirm. Many people voted for Trump, despite many misgivings, for this very reason and this reason alone. This is the sweet reward for having endured the bitter pill of Trump.

Huh. Every president is at the mercy of the Senate?? That is not what I understood in Civics classes growing up. I understood that the President selects a qualified competent jurist and the Senate gets to consider them based on their abilities, not on whether the ideology fits their own personal beliefs or views on life
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,359
Even Rick Wilson, the Republican Strategist, when interviewed on Australian TV last night said that if the Republicans confirm Trump's nominee, you are going to galvanise every moderate Democrat to get out and vote because abortion rights will become the issue.
They consider it worth it. It’s a life time appointment and they are likely to lose anyways.
 

becca

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,359
Huh. Every president is at the mercy of the Senate?? That is not what I understood in Civics classes growing up. I understood that the President selects a qualified competent jurist and the Senate gets to consider them based on their abilities, not on whether the ideology fits their own personal beliefs or views on life
All the time now Senators vote based on ideology and not qualifications.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
23,957
They consider it worth it. It’s a life time appointment and they are likely to lose anyways.
Hopefully the extremely conservative court doesn't come back to bite you in the ass. You really don't know what rights you were afforded over the last fifty years.
I imagine someone, state, organization will sue over employment civil rights. And make pregnancies a pre existing condition when needing health insurance. I expect changes to employment protections.
One of the issues with a single issue voter. I weep for all of us.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,128
Huh. Every president is at the mercy of the Senate?? That is not what I understood in Civics classes growing up. I understood that the President selects a qualified competent jurist and the Senate gets to consider them based on their abilities, not on whether the ideology fits their own personal beliefs or views on life
I think that idea was thrown out the window a long time ago. There is meant to be separation of church and state but the reality is that doesn't happen. And there is too much money involved from lobby groups for them to behave any other way.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,006
Even Rick Wilson, the Republican Strategist, when interviewed on Australian TV last night said that if the Republicans confirm Trump's nominee, you are going to galvanise every moderate Democrat to get out and vote because abortion rights will become the issue.
And the ACA.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
23,957
Just a reminder somethings that have been changed since 1971. Thanks to some SC rulings. Like I said I hope we don't go backward, but feel it is truly possible.

 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
51,376
They consider it worth it. It’s a life time appointment and they are likely to lose anyways.
They are likely to lose the Presidency. But what about their own jobs? The GOP candidates in down-ballot races? Why risk those to please a President who might lose and, even if he doesn't, he's out in 4 more years?
He didn’t get where he is without some good political instincts.
Naw. He was lucky. It's human nature to attribute skill of some sort to the winner. But we've seen how great his "instincts" are this time around. His instincts clearly suck if that's why he's saying what he's saying. But since he's saying what he said in 2016, I think he was just lucky that he said those things at the right time that it resonated with enough people in the exact right states. It's certainly not the right time now, yet he won't stop saying those things.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,128
Just a reminder somethings that have been changed since 1971. Thanks to some SC rulings. Like I said I hope we don't go backward, but feel it is truly possible.

And not to forget the rights of LGBTQI also had to be challenged in the Supreme Court.

It is amazing to think that those rights had to be taken to the Supreme Court in the first place for them to change. A civilised and mature society should not have to do that. One of the reasons I dislike religious conservatism. Incredibly discriminatory and dangerous ideology that should not have the right to impose their moral viewpoint on the whole of society.

A friend of mine says he cannot understand why people lose their sh*t over abortion. Well if the religious conservatives stopped trying to control women's rights it would not be such an issue.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,128
He didn’t get where he is without some good political instincts.
He doesn't have political instincts. He is only concerned about people worshipping him and WINNING. And he responds to the goon squad and the cheering crowd. He wouldn't say half the sh*t he does if people didn't cheer for him.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information