|
Can we rejigger the Supreme Court while we’re in there? This whole nakedly partisan lifetime appointed body with legislative powers thing kind of sucks.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
bowser posted:If Roe v Wade is overturned, it would be a complete political disaster for the Republicans, wouldn't it? Assuming they would have any reason to fear being voted out with a 6-3 court on their side, that is. It would make abortion a real issue in every election everywhere, and since some kind of right to abortion is broadly popular the thinking is it will motivate voters to the democrats' benefit more than republicans'. I think there are flaws in that argument, both in terms of polarization washing some of those effects out and in terms of the real world consequences of abortion being criminalized in many parts of the country. But that's the argument anyway. For what it's worth, RBG herself criticized Roe for taking choice out of electoral politics where it would be better protected by robust coalitions with skin in the game. I tend to disagree with that approach to something that should be a basic right, but again, that's the argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:More could be lost in a convention or amendment process than gained I think I'm starting to talk outside my bounds, sorry in advance, but a constitutional convention at least requires a super-majority right? That's as close to mass democracy as we'll ever get in this country. The risk of BS amendments getting put in (or the 14th being taken out my god) I think may be worth the risk. E: mass democracy at a national, federal level E1: I also understand some people may find the premise "a democractic super-majority == maximum dictatorship of the proletariat!" to be laughable, and yeah ok I'm not the biggest leftie America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Sep 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It kinda sounds like he knew she was gonna die and is downplaying it. Maybe they had inside info days in advance on a turn in her health or something. Well he did abruptly announce that he would put Ted Cruz on the court about a week ago when nobody asked him CommunityEdition posted:Can we rejigger the Supreme Court while we’re in there? This whole nakedly partisan lifetime appointed body with legislative powers thing kind of sucks. You don't even need to change the constitution for that since the court is granted no lawmaking powers in the text, it only maintains them because it is convenient for our rulers to have the supreme authority in the country be utterly unaccountable to the public Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Sep 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
You are talking about the same court that gutted the VRA despite a loving constitutional amendment that says congress gets to make the call on this subject. The US is so stupid that if the SCOTUS says Trump can run for a third term everyone will just loving accept it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
Legal is whatever happens that isn't stopped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:Legal is whatever happens that isn't stopped. Amazingly Nixon wasn’t enough of a crook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
So odds on it will be Amy Barrett right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
chinigz posted:So odds on it will be Amy Barrett right? Politico has a report from the Kavanaugh days that Trump said he was saving Barrett for when RBG left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You are talking about the same court that gutted the VRA despite a loving constitutional amendment that says congress gets to make the call on this subject. The US is so stupid that if the SCOTUS says Trump can run for a third term everyone will just loving accept it. I kind of feel at this point that he’s extremely serious about repealing the 22nd Amendment and is gonna do whatever he can to get it done ASAP if he wins re-election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
Armitage posted:I kind of feel at this point that he’s extremely serious about repealing the 22nd Amendment and is gonna do whatever he can to get it done ASAP if he wins re-election. He is 100% serious about taking a third term if he wins in November and doesn’t have a Big Mac attack before then. he’s not going to let the 22nd stand in his way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Amazingly Nixon wasn’t enough of a crook. what is "the actual lesson the right learned from watergate" the right is so stupid and wrong about everything except how to claw power for themselves
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
chinigz posted:So odds on it will be Amy Barrett right? Neomi Rao has been a rising star in utterly indefensible opinions lately, and she's on the DC Circuit. It'd be a great chance to make sure she can't be overruled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 07:12
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:what is "the actual lesson the right learned from watergate" It's actually very difficult to get more crooked than Nixon. It's not clear that Trump actually is, yet. A reminder that the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers had his case dismissed because Nixon sent the dirty tricks squad to break into his psychiatrist's office and offered the presiding judge FBI director if he would destroy him. Like maybe Trump would do that if he were sufficiently organized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It's actually very difficult to get more crooked than Nixon. It's not clear that Trump actually is, yet. A reminder that the guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers had his case dismissed because Nixon sent the dirty tricks squad to break into his psychiatrist's office and offered the presiding judge FBI director if he would destroy him. Like maybe Trump would do that if he were sufficiently organized. this is true but the right was correct in that the problem was they lost control of the narrative, and their own party. and they didn't just burn the tapes and go "whoops" I guess. the factual degree of crookedness was/is kind of irrelevant. hence creating fox news and other things, like heading agencies with completely shameless sycophants Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Sep 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
CommunityEdition posted:Can we rejigger the Supreme Court while we’re in there? This whole nakedly partisan lifetime appointed body with legislative powers thing kind of sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 08:04
|
|
|
The supreme court could rule that fetus is person so abortion is just illegal, regardless of red or blue state, and they will if they can trust me. As for "what about the places for their mistresses and daughters to abort", they have more than enough money to send them off to canada for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:Didn't she not step down under Obama because she expecting the senate to pull the crap that they pulled anyway? I somehow don't expect them to follow precedent and wait to see what the "will of the voters is" or whatever line they tried pushing on us. I seem to remember people here thinking that she did not want a milquetoast neoliberal like Obama to pick her replacement. "Bernie or bust" -Ruth Bader Ginsburg
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I seem to remember people here thinking that she did not want a milquetoast neoliberal like Obama to pick her replacement. She wanted Hilary to do it, everyone knew she was next.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 11:25
|
|
|
Trump does all his criminal poo poo way out in the open. Trump is a bigger crook domestically - Nixon wins out due to torpedoing peace talks and prolonging a criminal war unnecessarily to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
I was just looking at the ages of the remaining justices, and most are only in their 50s and 60s. Alito is 70, Thomas is 72, and Breyer is 82. If RBG's successor is put through during this term, the next president may only end up appointing one justice even if they serve two terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
Breyer needs to retire next year
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
Let's call it how it is. No matter what happens, it's going to be ugly. If Trump pushes through a new SCJ before the election, and the election is contested in the court. It will be viewed as illegitimate. If he doesn't and it ties 4/4 (Roberts flips) There is no conclusion to the contested election. If the Supreme court can't deal with a contested election, I seriously doubt the country survives the aftermath.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Amazingly Nixon wasn’t enough of a crook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Mcconnell's objective has been to transition the US from a (somewhat) democratic country to a non-democratic one. He is fully self-aware. I'm pretty sure he doesn't care that he is a piece of poo poo and yes, this is probably the only way he can climax by completely screwing the country over with his shady bullshit. They really don't seem to care if the country is on fire as long as they can keep power, when a big portion of your party is a doomsday cult I guess you can get away with a lot as long as you throw them a bone every once in a while. I'm not holding my breath on any GOP members breaking rank, like mentioned earlier even if they get voted out they will get some position with a ministry of truth type thinktank making $500k a year. In the last 4 years they have proven that they have no integrity, they will cover for their own regardless of the crime or the morals they claim to have up to and including treason. So sure both parties are the same if you have your head under a loving rock, democrats despite their many problems will at least eat their own sometimes. She could have retired under Obama in the first two years of his presidency but while people theorized that an incompetent buffoon could become president I still think most people were blindsided that it actually happened. I still cant believe the mental gymnastics these people have to go through to think that he is doing good for us, even things that have directly affected them like the tax increase or running all these farms under. I will be very surprised if the election doesn't end up getting decided by the SC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
She could have retired in 2013 if Democrats had the guts to kill the fillibuster on supreme court picks, and if they didn't there was no way HRC would have been able to get a pick through the Senate so I don't know what the play is. The sheer hubris of the Democratic establishment is partially to blame for this whole thing, how much of it is up to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
Would Mitch trade his majority for a scotus seat? I am assuming yes but I also realize these people flee as soon as they are threatened with personally suffering consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
I’m just one guy with no special insight or training, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all for the actual vote to happen after the midterms. Use it as a campaign issue and let endangered Republicans hem and haw and try to walk the tightrope, and then regardless of who wins go ahead and confirm in early November.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BobbyBigWheel/status/1307106004526657545?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
*6-3
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Would Mitch trade his majority for a scotus seat? I am assuming yes but I also realize these people flee as soon as they are threatened with personally suffering consequences. 1000 percent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Would Mitch trade his majority for a scotus seat? I am assuming yes but I also realize these people flee as soon as they are threatened with personally suffering consequences. Yes, he absolutely would. McConnell is using the last two decades of his life to make absolutely sure that everything he stands for long outlives him, and by far the best way to do that is lifetime court appointments. Senate majorities come and go but the Supreme Court affects the character of American politics for generations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
A lot of discussion is going on about court packing here and in USPOL, but no one has brought up another solution: term limits on justices. This is already supported 3:1 by respondents in 2019 (court packing was unpopular in that same poll), so we wouldn't have to swim uphill. A 20 year term limit would force Thomas and Breyer to retire and catch both Roberts and Alito in Biden's first term. It's a bit slower sure, but in 4 years or so the court would be 5:4 left-leaning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:A lot of discussion is going on about court packing here and in USPOL, but no one has brought up another solution: term limits on justices. This is already supported 3:1 by respondents in 2019 (court packing was unpopular in that same poll), so we wouldn't have to swim uphill. A 20 year term limit would force Thomas and Breyer to retire and catch both Roberts and Alito in Biden's first term. It's a bit slower sure, but in 4 years or so the court would be 5:4 left-leaning. SCOTUS term limits would require a constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:A lot of discussion is going on about court packing here and in USPOL, but no one has brought up another solution: term limits on justices. This would be a fine solution, and 18-year (or 2x[SIZE OF COURT]) long staggered terms would be fine; every term a president gets to nominate 2 justices (years 1 and 3 ideally), etc. etc. But...it would require a Constitutional amendment (see Article III's "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour"), so it's DOA. Packing the Supreme Court could be done just by passing a law increasing the size. E:f,b, but much less thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Sounds like the strategy is to double the size of the court and expand the Senate, then tell the GOP if they have a problem with it they can ratify term limits. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Sounds like the strategy is to double the size of the court and expand the Senate, then tell the GOP if they have a problem with it they can ratify term limits. And both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch can gtfo or get 20 new 35 year old associates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:SCOTUS term limits would require a constitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Would Mitch trade his majority for a scotus seat? I am assuming yes but I also realize these people flee as soon as they are threatened with personally suffering consequences. What consequences? Having more power?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Epinephrine posted:A constitutional amendment could be avoided by rotating justices out of SCOTUS onto lower courts once their time is up. A similar idea was proposed by Sanders during one of the primary debates. I doubt that the Supreme Court will agree that they are still "holding their office" they were appointed to if they are assigned to a lower court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 16:30
|
|
