|
VitalSigns posted:Shows in their 6-3 majority Aggressors will always have that kind of advantage over those showing more integrity. The four Democratic nominees who were in place in 2016 had the integrity not to play Calvinball with the rule of “Senate confirms or the nominee isn’t seated.” As would any credible Obama nominee. There’s no point howling at the moon that these people aren’t tankies who don’t care about rules, or Thomas clones who... don’t care about rules.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
If course, the real root of the problem goes way further back than the Obama admin or even Clinton, since Republicans controlled the presidency for 20 out of 24 years ending 1992, appointed ALL justices within that time, and only had a 5-4 court because the median range of American jurisprudential thought is way, waaay to the middle of Republican ideological though even circa the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Who controlled the Senate for those 24 years prior to 1992
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Who controlled the Senate for those 24 years prior to 1992 Dixiecrats (68-82) and Republicans (82-88) for most of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Dixiecrats (68-82) and Republicans (82-88) for most of it. I was just going to point this out but this is much more succinct. Of course, if the complaint is that Democrats need to be less deferential on nominations than before, obviously they’ve decided on that. The writing was on the wall once Feinstein got dethroned. And less Ds votes for Kavanaugh/Gorsuch than Rs for Sotomayor/Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
So Democrats from 68-82 and from 89-92 How did Republican justices get confirmed in those periods then. How did they even get a vote in the senate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So Democrats from 68-82 and from 89-92 We already know how and know your thesis of Dems bad based on generations past. Most posters including me would agree they made shortsighted decisions, much like everyone who wasn’t rich and voted for Nixon/Reagan/Bush. So you’ve fired your zingers and made your point. And me without my DeLorean. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Wasn't sure. It seems then that the problem isn't that republicans controlled the presidency too much, because controlling the presidency doesn't let you put justices in the court. The problem seems to be that Republicans understand what the Supreme Court is and the Democrats do not. When Republicans have a way to control who gets appointed to a political body with vast powers over the law and few checks, they take it. When Democrats have it they treat it like a parlor game and give it away a decent percentage of the time to be nice and a good sport. I wonder what a republican president would do if a Democratic senate didn't vote on one of their justices. It's never happened, but I bet if it had, a 5-4 precedent would have been set to appoint them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Probably pack the court in the 80s with Baker/Dole’s blessings, so we would have ended up in the same place only faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Which would have set a precedent for Democrats to do it too. So you still would have had a conservative court for 83-92, liberal 93-04? (since Gore won), and who knows after that presumably it would trade off instead of just being all conservative for decades and decades regardless of elections
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
What you're seeing now is the culmination of a several decades project to radicalize the court in a conservative manner. The dems didn't have a parallel movement because for all of that time they were pretty conservative and "keep the status quo" doesn't fire up zealots. So if your general point is "Dems are bad" I don't know that many folks are going to disagree with you here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
It's the same thing with Obama and the 4 Democrats on the court refusing to use their power to put another liberal on the court. They didn't stop the precedent from being set. Republicans aren't going to leave that power on the table the day Democrats finally wise up and stop confirming Republican justices. So the precedent will be set anyway, it will just have cost Democrats a seat first, and when it's finally used it will be to entrench a conservative majority. And my point isn't Dems are bad. My point is they don't understand what the court is and still don't or they would treat it like the political office it is and always has been. Arguments that it would have been wrong for liberal justices to vote for a liberal court make as much sense as arguments that it's wrong for Democrats in the House to vote for a Democrat to be speaker and they should elect a Republican just to be nice. When conservatives on the court had the opportunity to vote for a conservative to be selected president they weren't foolish enough to decline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's the same thing with Obama and the 4 Democrats on the court refusing to use their power to put another liberal on the court. Pretty sure the Dems do understand that it's a political office and always been. It's more like "Bad People doing Really Bad Things" and "Bad People not quite willing to be As Bad While Still Being Bad"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns is forgetting that political movements that are, by nature, authoritarian and bad faith will always have a leg up. By their nature they are mostly first to the punch. And no, Gore probably wouldn’t have won the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount. Most methods of recounting had him behind. That’s what made the OG 5-4 decision a huge waste of energy as well as jurisprudence they didn’t even want to see cited in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
A liberal court could have ordered any counting method they wanted, they didn't have to follow what the FL Supreme Court said. Conservatives weren't dumb enough to hope the FL Court's order would give it to Bush anyway. They wrote their own order that they knew would work 100% And do the bad guys have to have a leg up. The court doesn't have to be a super legislature with a lifetime guardian council that can write laws at will and pick presidents in convenient circumstances. None of that is in the Constitution. If Democrats don't think the court should have certain powers that the court has awarded itself, they should use their control of the rest of the government to strip it of those illegitimate powers. If they are fine with the court having those powers then they should use them whenever they can like Republicans do. Saying "oh well it's just jim dandy for the court to have all this broad unaccountable power as long as we're good chums and never use them because we're such good chums" makes no sense. Is everyone in politics in every party always going to be a good chum? Obviously not. And this isn't even the only example. Remember Blue Slips? They let Republican senate minorities hold seats open or even pick justices for Democrats to appoint for years to be good chums. Were Republicans good chums about it when it was their turn? Of course not. Is the problem there that authoritarians are inherently more powerful? No, nobody forced Democrats to do that. They just didn't understand how the government actually worked. Maybe Democrats should make Kevin McCarthy Speaker of the House to be good chums. Then later they can ask a Republican majority nicely to make Pelosi speaker, and when they say "lol no" this will prove that authoritarians are just inherently more powerful and there was nothing Democrats ever could have done to control the Speakership. But of course Democrats wouldn't do something this dumb because they understand the Speaker is a political office. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:And no, Gore probably wouldn’t have won the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount. Most methods of recounting had him behind. That’s what made the OG 5-4 decision a huge waste of energy as well as jurisprudence they didn’t even want to see cited in the future. This is actually not the case. Historians agree that had the Florida court-ordered full recount been allowed to continue, rather than being stopped by the Republicans, Gore would have won the state. There were smaller recounts that had been occurring previously that would not have put Gore over the top (because they were missing pockets of uncounted Democrats), but the final one would have. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is actually not the case. Historians agree that had the Florida court-ordered full recount been allowed to continue, rather than being stopped by the Republicans, Gore would have won the state. There were smaller recounts that had been occurring previously that would not have put Gore over the top (because they were missing pockets of uncounted Democrats), but the final one would have. Right. There's an argument the two times we had to completely un gently caress the trajectory this country was going was if someone stopped Reagan. The second time would have been letting Gore win. Once those two things didn't happen, our fate (of the country falling into a fascist and failing empire as climate change slowly and then quickly kills off the majority of the human race) was pretty much guaranteed. Remember if Bush hadn't been placed in the white house, there was a very good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened. (There was a CIA analyst that warned higher ups about an attack, but was ignored because he had been a Clinton employee I believe, and the Iraq war sure as hell wouldn't have happened.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And this isn't even the only example. Remember Blue Slips? They let Republican senate minorities hold seats open or even pick justices for Democrats to appoint for years to be good chums. Were Republicans good chums about it when it was their turn? Of course not. Republicans maintained district court blue slips, they got rid of appellate blue slips. They even let blue state Dems suggest acceptable nominees for district courts in their states, just like the Dems did for them. (Eg Judge Otake, Judge Rowland, Judge McElroy, Judge Gallagher, Judge Brown EDNY, Judge Cullen, Judge Gujarati, etc etc etc, not even talking about the SDNY judges where they were pitched to Schumer/Gillibrand to get their sign off before nomination.) Should Dems have done away with appellate blue slips too? Yeah, appellate blue slips were always dumb. But your point simply doesn’t match up with reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slipquote:In October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.[9][10] Sorry i don't get your point. Do you think my point only works if Republicans ignored blue slips 100% of the time instead of just when they wanted to? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Right. There's an argument the two times we had to completely un gently caress the trajectory this country was going was if someone stopped Reagan. Did Reagan's involvement with Iran and undermining Carter's administration come up before the election? Because if it had, Carter should've said gently caress the optics and had Reagan's rear end executed for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
Those are all appellate nominees, but okay, continue to illustrate you have no idea how things work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Those are all appellate nominees I didn't say otherwise I asked what point you think you're proving here. Democrats respected blue slips. Republicans ignored them when they wanted to. I'm not sure what pointing to the times Republicans didn't ignore them is supposed to prove.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
This is a really weird debate to be having in an age where elected officials and appointed functionaries in a significant number of states have pledged to abort democracy in favor of their King.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is a really weird debate to be having in an age where elected officials and appointed functionaries in a significant number of states have pledged to abort democracy in favor of their King. I always get a big laff when I remember that people's taxes pay these fucks salaries, healthcare, and retirement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't say otherwise Everyone respected (and still basically does respect) blue slips on district court nominees, D and R alike. In the modern era, Leahy and Specter were unique in that they respected them on circuit court nominees. One earlier chair (Eastland) did the same, though that was mostly so he could help block non-segregationist judges. (This is the Dixiecrat vs. Democrat point I made earlier which you ignored.) Every other chair, D and R alike, has been willing to ignore blue slips on circuit court nominees, and occasionally even on district court nominees—in fact, prior to the Trump era, the last time a district court nominee went through without both blue slips that I'm aware of was Vaughn Walker, who was confirmed without both blue slips during the Judiciary chairmanship of... well, actually, of Joe Biden. (Before that Strom Thurmond did it a few times.) A useful chart for the pre-2003 chairs' policies is in a CRS report on blue slips. My point is that your "were Republicans good chums about it when it was their turn" isn't actually true - they basically did the same as Democrats did, minus Leahy. Democrats even did it first under Kennedy. In practice, from when Eastland retired til 2017, there had been a total of 4 nominees confirmed without both blue slips being returned - 1 under Biden and 3 under Thurmond. Whether the written policy precluded it or not, in practice it didn't happen until Trump, no matter who was running the committee. In part this was due to hold/cloture practice prior to the nominations rules changes in 2013 and 2017, which effectively permitted a senator who refused their blue slip to block floor consideration of a nominee who didn't have 60 votes worth of support, and to make such a nominee take forever on the floor as well (30 hours of post-cloture debate, as opposed to the 2 permitted under cloture now). I think the Democrats understood how the government actually worked a lot better than you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:My point is that your "were Republicans good chums about it when it was their turn" isn't actually true - they basically did the same as Democrats did, minus Leahy. Democrats even did it first under Kennedy. Sorry, not gonna "minus Leahy" from my evaluation of what happened to make both parties look the same when they weren't. And also even if you "minus Leahy" they still weren't the same: Kalman posted:In practice, from when Eastland retired til 2017, there had been a total of 4 nominees confirmed without both blue slips being returned - 1 under Biden and 3 under Thurmond. So 4 in like 50 years. How many were confirmed without both blue slips after 2017. At least 8 in just three years. Those are pretty different rates! If Democrats understood how the courts worked they'd treat them like the political offices they really are, and then they would control the court because they've won more elections. But they don't so they haven't, so it's a 6-3 Republican majority for life. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 06:28
|
|
|
The world in which the appointment arms race accelerated from 0 to 100 is one in which Republicans and Dixiecrats (who were functionally Republicans when you look at how they treated nominees by LBJ and Nixon) cause abortion to be illegal during every R administration, chuck out voting/civil rights legislation by the eighties at latest, and basically do everything they’re doing now much earlier, affordable care act is repealed by fiat under Trump. It’s way too pat to say “now they’re gonna do it anyway so doesn’t matter” because for people living under those past R administrations it mattered a lot. It’s easy to say here’s what should have been done but much harder to anticipate the consequences especially when 60 percent of people were voting for loving Reagan.Kaal posted:This is actually not the case. Historians agree that had the Florida court-ordered full recount been allowed to continue, rather than being stopped by the Republicans, Gore would have won the state. There were smaller recounts that had been occurring previously that would not have put Gore over the top (because they were missing pockets of uncounted Democrats), but the final one would have. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts What the Florida courts were ordering was still going to keep Bush in the lead. Yes, there were other ways a count could have gone to Gore, but that’s not what was ordered, and if it eventually had been remember that Katherine Harris was the certifying official and an R Congress was meeting on 1/6/00 under the electoral count act. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The world in which the appointment arms race accelerated from 0 to 100 is one in which Republicans and Dixiecrats (who were functionally Republicans when you look at how they treated nominees by LBJ and Nixon) cause abortion to be illegal during every R administration, chuck out voting/civil rights legislation by the eighties at latest, and basically do everything they’re doing now much earlier, affordable care act is repealed by fiat under Trump. It’s way too pat to say “now they’re gonna do it anyway so doesn’t matter” because for people living under those past R administrations it mattered a lot. It’s easy to say here’s what should have been done but much harder to anticipate the consequences especially when 60 percent of people were voting for loving Reagan. I would encourage you to reread the materials that you cited. While the media may have supported the Republicans in the immediate days after they overturned the election, later review by a variety of experts have come to a consensus that Gore actually won. What the Florida courts ordered - a full recount under a common standard - would have yielded that result. I know that this is an old case, but I think given how damaging it was to both national credibility and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, it's important to recognize that this opinion was not merely wrong on the law (which was essentially predicated on the farcical idea that Bush was personally harmed by losing, but Gore was not, and those concerns trumped the rights of Florida citizens to a free and fair election) but also wrong on the facts of the case - that Gore did indeed win the election, and that the Republicans saw that happening and intervened to overturn that result. Wikipedia posted:Florida Ballot Project recounts Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
These guys need to up their troll game https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1487132557699436546?s=20&t=DqQR4ZZLt4XwAbpVoYmBPw
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:These guys need to up their troll game I mean all Republican nods at inclusion are basically this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOYMFkFgPzk Hawley just dresses it up in intellectual posturing and insecurity about never becoming president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
The scotus just indicated that the voting rights act is dead as they took up Alabama’s appeal of it’s currently illegal gerrymander so they can rewrite the interpretation of section 2 of the vra. Our nation is irrevocably broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 01:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The scotus just indicated that the voting rights act is dead as they took up Alabama’s appeal of it’s currently illegal gerrymander so they can rewrite the interpretation of section 2 of the vra. Not irrevocably. Decent chance things turn around in our lifetimes. The kids are alright and all the worst people are over 70, which is the age folks just start randomly dying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
It'll be a lovely 20 years until the last boomers and worst xers are gone though
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Slaan posted:It'll be a lovely 20 years until the last boomers and worst xers are gone though I didn't say our healthy lifetimes I hold out hope that there will be m4a by the time I'm an alzheimer's zombie though
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Slaan posted:It'll be a lovely 20 years until the last boomers and worst xers are gone though We don't need the last boomer gone. We just need to pass a tipping point of voters in enough states. Millennials began to outnumber boomers at some point in the 2010s (depending on when you draw the dividing lines), and they and zoomers have also recently started outvoting boomers and silents sometimes; it just hasn't been enough to noticeably swing elections yet because we don't use the national popular vote. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
The senate is a huge problem if you’re betting on demographic change to save us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
Yeah, the senate is already a basically insurmountable barrier, and it's only going to get worse with a dead VRA
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
Even if you had favorable senate... how do you get someone like Barrett off the court as it's essentially a lifetime appointment. The way I see it, an entire generation is essentially hosed but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Even if you had favorable senate... how do you get someone like Barrett off the court as it's essentially a lifetime appointment. The way I see it, an entire generation is essentially hosed but I'd be glad to be proven wrong. This wouldn't end up being the first time that the court is circumvented. They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it; to paraphrase. Dameius fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Feb 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Even if you had favorable senate... how do you get someone like Barrett off the court as it's essentially a lifetime appointment. The way I see it, an entire generation is essentially hosed but I'd be glad to be proven wrong. There are a lot of things that could be done, ranging from impeachment to reorganization of the federal courts to court packing etc. The more likely path though is keep holding the Presidency and wait for Alito and Thomas to die. At that point it's a 4-3 court and you revive the VRA judicially.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2022 04:59
|
|