|
The Iron Rose posted:It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part. When they start marching LGBT folk into camps I hope you and I share a cell. "Just wait until white Republican moms in the suburbs hear about this, there'll be electoral hell to pay when they find out about the breach of  " I'll say to you every day as they put the electrodes of the Pence cis-straightifier to our temples.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
Also, while court packing hasn't been used in a long time, for the first 100 years or so it was routinely used when Congress liked the president (and the reverse was used when they didn't).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Our democracy is currently dead. SC makes contradictory decisions weeks apart for purely partisan reasons. Packing the courts is possibly one of the few ways we can rebuild a democracy without bloodshed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part. It's already happened once, you melodramatic tool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:Non-US poster here. I'm sorry, I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but can anybody please give me a short summary on the viability of expanding the supreme court in the Democrats favour? Of the three branches the Supreme Court has the least amount of constitutional definition, with no set number of judges and no requirements for justices other than they be nominated by the President with the 'advise and consent' of the Senate. It's been at 9 seats for most of the country's existence out of tradition, however, and when Roosevelt attempted to 'Pack' the court (Via a complex scheme that would have appointed a new justice for every sitting member over the age of 70), he attempted to do it through legislation-which ultimately failed, since it splintered Roosevelt's New Deal coalition between those who supported Roosevelt (despite their misgivings over the plan) and those who outright opposed it. Technically speaking IIRC, there's nothing stopping a sitting president from simply nominating a bunch of new justices and having the Senate confirm them. The biggest hurdle would be whether the Senate would go along with it. Unlike in Roosevelt's time, I think it'd be a lot easier to get Democrats to go along with it since McConnell outright stole a seat to begin with, though I'm sure there'd still be a number of Senators opposing on account of On the other hand, a better way might be to do it legislatively, since a legislative cap on the number of seats would make it harder for the Republicans to simply pack the court themselves if they got back into power (And could potentially be wrapped within a general expansion of the federal judiciary, both to pack the courts with non-insane judges as well as for the practical purpose that the system simply needs more judges, given the current volume of cases).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Remember that Collins and Murk both voted no on healthcare due to abortion. There's a huge difference between voting no on a bill that the entire healthcare industry opposed because it would collapse the system for no reason, with the consequences to women's (and everyone's) healthcare immediately obvious along with whom to blame.....and a vote for a corporate-bought justice that every CEO in the country wants to see on the court with the ramifications for women's health separated by a number of years and with the responsibility attenuated from the people who originally voted to confirm him, and that's assuming those two still even plan on being in the Senate when Roe goes down and aren't expecting to have jumped over to a lucrative sinecure courtesy of the people to whom they delivered full control of the court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
finally, the scotus we deserve
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The number of seats on the Supreme Court is set by law. You just change that law, expanding it from 9 to 11, then fill those vacancies. It just takes a simple majority in Congress (after you abolish the filibuster). Ah, for some reason I didn't think there was current legislation setting it at 9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Collins and murk would vote no while manchin and Jones yes so it doesn't matter
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Just wait until white Republican moms in the suburbs hear about this, there'll be electoral hell to pay when they find out about the breach of
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Collins and murk would vote no while manchin and Jones yes so it doesn't matter I don't really trust Jones but even then it feels like the abortion senator from Alabama might not be the first to cross the aisle for this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Technically speaking IIRC, there's nothing stopping a sitting president from simply nominating a bunch of new justices and having the Senate confirm them. you need to amend the judiciary act of 1869 which is where the current size originates
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Collins and murk would vote no while manchin and Jones yes so it doesn't matter Donnelly, Manchin, Heitkamp, and McCaskill will vote yes in a chickenshit attempt to hold their seats, and then they will lose anyway because nobody cares about showing up for a democrat who won't even vote like one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:3 dems voted for Gorsuch once it was clear he would be confirmed who will be facing tough races this year in heavily republican states, don't try to pull this dumb poo poo. that's miles different from preventing party leadership from blocking a trump replacement in 2019 if dems take the Senate. Got to love spineless Dem politicians that don't stand for anything. The Dollop did a good episode on Dianne Feinstein, currently a Dem. senator. Apparently after Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated in San Francisco, Feinstein became mayor. She wanted to appeal to conservative Democrats to bolster her political career, so she put up the confederate flag 3 times in San Francisco. In loving San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Donnelly, Manchin, Heitkamp, and McCaskill will vote yes in a chickenshit attempt to hold their seats, and then they will lose anyway because nobody cares about showing up for a democrat who won't even vote like one. Well that and they agree ideologically with union-busting, gay-bashing, and slut-punishing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:Non-US poster here. I'm sorry, I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseam, but can anybody please give me a short summary on the viability of expanding the supreme court in the Democrats favour? Slim to none without major political upheaval
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Slim to none without major political upheaval Sadly it is more of a plausible possibility that Republicans could stack the court now with 3 extra justices or something seeing how they are basically getting away with whatever the gently caress they want due to their propaganda machine being in full swing and working wonders for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Anyone who says this website doesn't produce comedy anymore has clearly not read this thread  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When they start marching LGBT folk into camps I hope you and I share a cell. Lol I mean to be fair I could pick at random. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
What's the over/under on a bet that this will be the youngest person ever nominated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What's the over/under on a bet that this will be the youngest person ever nominated? 6.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Aint no rule that says a second-grader can't be a Supreme Court Justice
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
jeeves posted:What's the over/under on a bet that this will be the youngest person ever nominated? We're just going to have to wait for whoever comes next to approve a fetal personhood case and we'll finally have Chief Justice Baby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
You know poo poo's gotten bad when Arkane's posting.Craptacular! posted:I don’t think the Republicans will go there because it will cost them corporate benefactors. Companies with public relations departments that are just wrapping up their Pride campaign were formerly just fine denying gay people rights that never existed, but will be pushed to action if they’re supporting taking people’s rights away. This is a good impersonation of a person who doesn't know how Corporate America works. Mortabis posted:Court packing was a bad idea when Roosevelt tried it and it's still a bad idea now. Republicans will win an election again, and once you ring that bell, you can't unring it. Actually, an amendment fixing the number of justices at 9 is a very good idea. No, because the SCOTUS can issue a ruling in a way that makes SSM illegal period. Not just a thing that the Federal Government doesn't give recognition to. Just like a ruling that overturns Roe v. Wade isn't going to leave abortion up to the states, it's going to declare it (first degree) murder and outlaw it entirely. Look at the broad reach of Hobby Lobby, or the overreach of authority in Shelby County, for a taste of what a ruling that overturns Roe v. Wade will look like. GreyjoyBastard posted:stardust is either a fascist or a troll pretending to be one Ironic fascism is still fascism. And there's only one acceptable way to deal with Nazis. In reality, Kennedy's replacement will probably be one of the quickest confirmations in US history and the media will linger on it like a fart in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
"Corporations will save us" is almost as adorable as "democratic norms will save us". Corporations want right-wing ideologues on the court to bust unions, ban lawsuits from workers, and destroy labor rights. Lol at thinking they'll give any of that up because they just care about gay people soooooo much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Also, corporate america will easily turn on the LGBT community if they smell a buck in it. If the justice wants to stone gays to death they will be fine with it as long as they also bust unions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
So being a moron with a limited education on judicial matters, are there any good examples of functioning court systems in the world that I should read up on that aren't prone to political misuse in the way ours obviously is and always was? I have trouble imagining a system that isn't a constant ideological battle and inevitably prone to hijacking in this way, but it could be a lack of imagination given the system I grew up under.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Sure corporations are pro-gay (finally) now that gay marriage has majority approval and gay people have money and they don't lose more money from bigots boycotting Target or w/e. When the opposite was the case then of course it was hate gays every day. But they're obviously going to notice that ending unions pays bigger profits than idk whatever business they get from gay weddings in Texas, and it's not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
One of Trump's biggest supporters is a gay libertarian vampire who is absolutely ok with seeing LGBT rights burned to nothing if it furthers his own goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Also, corporate america will easily turn on the LGBT community if they smell a buck in it. If the justice wants to stone gays to death they will be fine with it as long as they also bust unions. Don't be silly. They'll happily sell rainbow flag RESIST (TM) merch, and maybe run some pro-LGBTQ ads. Then they'll donate part of the proceeds to Turtle's re-election campaign for doing so well by them on taxes and labor rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part. Oh hey, hot take from a fascist who believes that the correct law and constitution is whatever the Republicans say it is, regardless of consistent legal reasoning or application. Evil Fluffy posted:One of Trump's biggest supporters is a gay libertarian vampire who is absolutely ok with seeing LGBT rights burned to nothing if it furthers his own goals. Two gay libertarian vampires happy to kickstart the genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure corporations are pro-gay (finally) now that gay marriage has majority approval and gay people have money and they don't lose more money from bigots boycotting Target or w/e. When the opposite was the case then of course it was hate gays every day. I think there's significantly less overlap between corporations heavily dependent on union labor and corporations that are enthusiastically pro-gay than this presupposes. A huge chunk of the professional services and tech industries aren't unionized at all, but basically need to be pro-lgbqt to attract the kind of people they need as employees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
ekeog posted:I think there's significantly less overlap between corporations heavily dependent on union labor and corporations that are enthusiastically pro-gay than this presupposes. A huge chunk of the professional services and tech industries aren't unionized at all, but basically need to be pro-lgbqt to attract the kind of people they need as employees. They still want right-wing judges for other profit-making reasons like banning class action lawsuits and declining to enforce labor laws when they illegally collude to fix wages. They can still virtue-signal about caring about gays and wring their hands over the decisions that will be coming down against us, and even if their virtue-signalling doesn't work*, they're still capable of doing math and figuring out they'll make way more money enforcing mandatory arbitration on everyone and colluding with their competitors than they'll lose in goodwill for donating to Republican senators. *(but it will because our corporate media will never hold them to account for their political donations and will slobber on their dicks over their corporate float in our pride parade)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They still want right-wing judges for other profit-making reasons like banning class action lawsuits and declining to enforce labor laws when they illegally collude to fix wages. i agree about all of this except that invalidating hundreds of thousands (millions?) of gays marriages is an actual possibility. the thing im more worried about as a queer is them picking up the circuit split on Title VII next year and formally stripping away employment protections from the circuits that have recognized them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
ekeog posted:I think there's significantly less overlap between corporations heavily dependent on union labor and corporations that are enthusiastically pro-gay than this presupposes. A huge chunk of the professional services and tech industries aren't unionized at all, but basically need to be pro-lgbqt to attract the kind of people they need as employees. Most companies aren't terrified of unions anymore. Many of the ones that are are the same ones that need to attract LGBT employees and/or don't want to be seen throwing out LGBT customers. The Waltons, etc are companies are in a position where unions have already lost. Silicon Valley is in such a state where a CEO found donating to prop 8 was unacceptable and replaced. And if you look at the union battles Democrats are fighting right now, there's... Bernie's joining in with the Disney World union over wages? That's another place where both the employees and the customer base are distinctively more queer than the norm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Whomever Trump picks the democrats should offer glowing support and commend trump for such a great choice It's time to start getting creative people !
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Professor Skittles posted:Whomever Trump picks the democrats should offer glowing support and commend trump for such a great choice You just say "Obama would have picked that person."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
ekeog posted:i agree about all of this except that invalidating hundreds of thousands (millions?) of gays marriages is an actual possibility. While I doubt they'll annul anyone's marriages federally, I'm sure they'll greenlight states refusing to marry any new couples because of ""religious objections"" from county clerks, I'm sure they'll let states discriminate against gay married couples who already live there. I'm sure we'll also see red states start enforcing their sodomy laws again which will be bad for gay people living there even if the SCOTUS ultimately declines to overturn Lawrence (wouldn't be surprised if they overturn it anyway though)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:It'd be the death of our democracy. So not viable in the slightest without a bloody revolution in which I want no part. How is it not already dead from McConnell's naked power grab?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 00:16
|
|
