April 10, 20214 yr Author 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: So your solution is to escalate the battle doing real damage to the country in the meantime. Not good. I don't have a hard solution. I haven't really made up my mind on this issue yet. I know there are perils involved in it. FDR took a ton of heat for court-packing and eventually had to back down, but that was very directly an abuse of power to get his New Deal agenda around the Coruts. That does loom large in my mind, but this is a very different situation. There's a place to argue that this could come back to bite them, but it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't." One thing I do know is that we can't simply do nothing, which is what you seem to be pushing for. Give me an alternative then. What's a reasonable move the Dems could take to put some pressure on the Reps to back off, aside from at least creating the perception of a threat to expand the Court?
April 10, 20214 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: So your solution is to escalate the battle doing real damage to the country in the meantime. Not good. It's a check and balance. He's saying it's fine to remove that for the benefit of one party. The whole authoritarian bull crap he's saying is exactly what would be accomplished. Then one party rules the land. The checks and balances are there to ensure equal representation. Awfully authoritarian of them to remove all of them for their benefit.
April 10, 20214 yr Author All I'm saying right now is that I support creating the commission. I support exploring the idea and think it's necessary to do so. I will be interested to see what the commission says and what the sources of their arguments are.
April 10, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, Boogyman said: Let's be honest, even the SCOTUS members Trump appointed have performed their jobs the way you would expect a judge to perform it. HE probably expected they would cater to his whims, but they didn't. I mean a bunch of members (both dems and repugs) of this very board thought if the election ended up being contested, they would just give it to him. Look how that turned out. I think the SCOTUS is fine the way it is configured now. Hopfully this commission comes to the same conclusion. I'm less concerned about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh than I am about Barrett. She's shown more propensity for judicial activism.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 7 minutes ago, Boogyman said: Let's be honest, even the SCOTUS members Trump appointed have performed their jobs the way you would expect a judge to perform it. HE probably expected they would cater to his whims, but they didn't. I mean a bunch of members (both dems and repugs) of this very board thought if the election ended up being contested, they would just give it to him. Look how that turned out. This is a good point. I am very grateful that they resisted Trump's most egregious attempts to undermine the Constitution. It does offer a degree of reassurance. However, you do still have to send some kind of message that Republican tactics over the last 10 years are not acceptable. How do you do that without letting things escape your control? I'm not sure there's an easy answer, but there certainly is room for debate.
April 10, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: All I'm saying right now is that I support creating the commission. I support exploring the idea and think it's necessary to do so. I will be interested to see what the commission says and what the sources of their arguments are. Playing with fire. There should not be a commission on this topic. It is wrong and in no way shape or form necessary. You're taking a fully partisan subjective position with a very short term perspective.
April 10, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: All I'm saying right now is that I support creating the commission. I support exploring the idea and think it's necessary to do so. I will be interested to see what the commission says and what the sources of their arguments are. I respectfully disagree. I think it's a dog and pony show for the Dems. They can placate some of their constituents by saying we had a commission look into it but they have to know it's bad optics and will do more damage to their party than good in the eyes of the people. Ultimately it will just be a big waste of taxpayers money.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Playing with fire. There should not be a commission on this topic. It is wrong and in no way shape or form necessary. You're taking a fully partisan subjective position with a very short term perspective. Even a commission is wrong? Lol, ok. I'm not taking a short-term perspective. It's a long-term perspective considering Trump just solidified a decades-long stranglehold of an outsized minority on the most important institutional safeguard of democracy. If some balance is not restored now, look for greater instability going forward as the majority becomes increasingly enraged as the Court gives its blessing to discriminatory laws, year after year. You seem to think that unrest and dysfunction can only accrue as the result of expansion. There's no guarantee doing nothing will not cause the same or worse degrees of dysfunction.
April 10, 20214 yr 25 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I don't have a hard solution. I haven't really made up my mind on this issue yet. I know there are perils involved in it. FDR took a ton of heat for court-packing and eventually had to back down, but that was very directly an abuse of power to get his New Deal agenda around the Coruts. That does loom large in my mind, but this is a very different situation. There's a place to argue that this could come back to bite them, but it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't." One thing I do know is that we can't simply do nothing, which is what you seem to be pushing for. Give me an alternative then. What's a reasonable move the Dems could take to put some pressure on the Reps to back off, aside from at least creating the perception of a threat to expand the Court? Continue to win at the polls and in particular down down on winning the State legislatures. Work hard to fill every single lower court position. Find ways to patch the current process so that the tactics that gave us Gorsuch and Barrett aren't repeated. Just don't put us in a position where the number of justices gets extended every time the power flips.
April 10, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Even a commission is wrong? Lol, ok. I'm not taking a short-term perspective. It's a long-term perspective considering Trump just solidified a decades-long stranglehold of an outsized minority on the most important institutional safeguard of democracy. If some balance is not restored now, look for greater instability going forward as the majority becomes increasingly enraged as the Court gives its blessing to discriminatory laws, year after year. You seem to think that unrest and dysfunction can only happen as the result of expansion. There's no guarantee doing nothing will not cause the same or worse degrees of dysfunction. Absolutely. It gives the appearance that extension of # of justices to regain ideological power in the court is a reasonable tactic. It is not. Any suggestion of this approach should simply be totally rejected as nonsense. You are absolutely taking a short term view. Once the power flips (and it will) the numbers will simply be shot right back to the other side. I'm talking about the next 50-100 years, not the next 10-20. Taking this extension approach will completely cement the politicizing of SCOTUS and forever remove the safeguard that you wish to ensure.
April 10, 20214 yr 16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I'm less concerned about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh than I am about Barrett. She's shown more propensity for judicial activism. Even so, she is one Justice. There are 8 less radical members.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Absolutely. It gives the appearance that extension of # of justices to regain ideological power in the court is a reasonable tactic. It is not. Any suggestion of this approach should simply be totally rejected as nonsense. You are absolutely taking a short term view. Once the power flips (and it will) the numbers will simply be shot right back to the other side. I'm talking about the next 50-100 years, not the next 10-20. Taking this extension approach will completely cement the politicizing of SCOTUS and forever remove the safeguard that you wish to ensure. If you look at the age of the judges most recently appointed, this majority will stand for more like 30 years, not 10-20. Expanding the Court in the manner that I would would not "re-gain" ideological power. It would merely lessen the majority currently constituted. I'd be fine just adding a single justice to make up for what they did to Garland. I don't support adding a whole new slate. It's a 6-3 majority right now. I'd be fine with 6-4, but an even number of Justices would create additional roadblocks to resolving litigation. Although, the Court has functioned with an even number of allocations before. It was 10 at one point.
April 10, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: If you look at the age of the judges most recently appointed, this majority will stand for more like 30 years, not 10-20. Expanding the Court in the manner that I would would not "re-gain" ideological power. It would merely lessen the majority currently constituted. I'd be fine just adding a single justice to make up for what they did to Garland. I don't support adding a whole new slate. It's a 6-3 majority right now. I'd be fine with 6-4, but an even number of Justices would create additional roadblocks to resolving litigation. Although, the Court has functioned with an even number of allocations before. It was 10 at one point. Things happen. The likelihood is that something will change over the next 10-20 years. They aren't going to add a single justice. Not an option. I understand you feel like the Repubs stole a seat and you want to rectify that. However, in practice there isn't a viable option that doesn't cause much further harm overall.
April 10, 20214 yr Breyer & Thomas stepping down would help. Alito is also 71. His father died at 73, though his mother lived to 98. (for the righties here, I'm not wishing him to die , I'm just listing the age his parents' reached as it's the best reference point for Alito's health and life expectancy, since it is a lifetime appointment)
April 10, 20214 yr Zero point zero chance they actually pack the court. It's just chum for the libs who were pissed (justifiably) at the hypocrites like Graham and McConnell.
April 10, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, sameaglesfan said: he's not wrong. pretty much every right has limits. you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. (imminent lawless action) you can protest, but in many places it requires a permit when it happens on public land. a police officer may violate your 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure if they believe an imminently dangerous situation exists. that Civil Asset Forfeiture is even a thing is a clear violation of the right. but the right will **** and moan about this because it's one of the areas they feel like they can enrage and engage the base.
April 10, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: he's not wrong. pretty much every right has limits. you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. (imminent lawless action) you can protest, but in many places it requires a permit when it happens on public land. a police officer may violate your 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure if they believe an imminently dangerous situation exists. that Civil Asset Forfeiture is even a thing is a clear violation of the right. but the right will **** and moan about this because it's one of the areas they feel like they can enrage and engage the base. Spoiler
April 10, 20214 yr Republicans are against any restrictions to the right to bear arms but when it comes to the Right to Vote, they have no problem with restrictions suppressing the right to Vote. I guess all rights under the Constitution are subject to restriction except the 2nd Amendment.
April 10, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, jsdarkstar said: Republicans are against any restrictions to the right to bear arms but when it comes to the Right to Vote, they have no problem with restrictions suppressing the right to Vote. I guess all rights under the Constitution are subject to restriction except the 2nd Amendment. Technically the closest thing to the right to vote in the constitution is the 24th and 26th amendments, and they only state that poll taxes are illegal, that 18 is the age of eligibility, and that you cannot be excluded on the basis of age. The constitution outlines all the reasons the state cannot deny the right to vote. But it leaves most to the states to determine the process.
April 10, 20214 yr 48 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Republicans are against any restrictions to the right to bear arms but when it comes to the Right to Vote, they have no problem with restrictions suppressing the right to Vote. I guess all rights under the Constitution are subject to restriction except the 2nd Amendment. No.
April 10, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said: Republicans are against any restrictions to the right to bear arms but when it comes to the Right to Vote, they have no problem with restrictions suppressing the right to Vote. I guess all rights under the Constitution are subject to restriction except the 2nd Amendment.
April 10, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: If you look at the age of the judges most recently appointed, this majority will stand for more like 30 years, not 10-20. Expanding the Court in the manner that I would would not "re-gain" ideological power. It would merely lessen the majority currently constituted. I'd be fine just adding a single justice to make up for what they did to Garland. I don't support adding a whole new slate. It's a 6-3 majority right now. I'd be fine with 6-4, but an even number of Justices would create additional roadblocks to resolving litigation. Although, the Court has functioned with an even number of allocations before. It was 10 at one point. You are going to hurt yourself bending that much to rationalize the outcome you want
April 10, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Absolutely. It gives the appearance that extension of # of justices to regain ideological power in the court is a reasonable tactic. It is not. Any suggestion of this approach should simply be totally rejected as nonsense. You are absolutely taking a short term view. Once the power flips (and it will) the numbers will simply be shot right back to the other side. I'm talking about the next 50-100 years, not the next 10-20. Taking this extension approach will completely cement the politicizing of SCOTUS and forever remove the safeguard that you wish to ensure. Republicans already packed the court though.
April 10, 20214 yr Author 30 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: You are going to hurt yourself bending that much to rationalize the outcome you want Maybe so, but I'm just trying to throw ideas out there, and it's not like Congress would take any of them up anyway. It's a minefield. I don't know how you navigate it, but I feel like there has to be some sort form of placation and am trying to think of the least aggressive way that could theoretically be done.
Create an account or sign in to comment