April 11, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Ahh right, prime Moss packing time Now if I was packing the Swedish courts I would have been up hours ago.
April 11, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Now if I was packing the Swedish courts I would have been up hours ago. Do us all a favor and stick to bowl and Piggly Wiggly shelf packing
April 11, 20214 yr Author 5 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Mitch and the Repubs set the scene with their abuse of power but it is the Dems who are now talking about "packing". The Repubs did not "pack the court". No, but they did "stack the Court," let's put it that way. The effect is essentially the same.
April 11, 20214 yr Author 1 hour ago, Dave Moss said: Who? Iron Eagle?? Lol He could be right. I don't remember Irony_Eagle being so blatantly racist, though. My bet's on Shocker, lol.
April 11, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: No, but they did "stack the Court," let's put it that way. The effect is essentially the same. No, only one part of the effect is the same.
April 11, 20214 yr Author 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: No, only one part of the effect is the same. Whether you add a seat through the legislative process or steal one with chicanery, you still tipped the balance of power to essentially the same extent.
April 11, 20214 yr 8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Whether you add a seat through the legislative process or steal one with chicanery, you still tipped the balance of power to essentially the same extent. No, that is only partially true. You are viewing this as a Dems vs. Repubs feud topic and not as a "what is best for the country topic". What Mitch did was take an opportunity to abuse power in the context of a vacancy on the court. He could only move the balance by a single seat and he couldn't have done anything without the vacancy. What you are talking about is a tactic that serves to take full control of SCOTUS as soon as one party gains both the WH and Senate. No vacancies are required. This tactic ensures that SCOTUS becomes 100% political. While the use of that tactic right now would tip the scale back to the left getting you what you want at the moment it would also completely and permanently remove the SCOTUS standing as a relatively neutral body of power and instead place all the SCOTUS power into the hands of the WH and the Senate. A very very bad thing to do.
April 11, 20214 yr Author 46 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No, that is only partially true. You are viewing this as a Dems vs. Repubs feud topic and not as a "what is best for the country topic". What Mitch did was take an opportunity to abuse power in the context of a vacancy on the court. He could only move the balance by a single seat and he couldn't have done anything without the vacancy. What you are talking about is a tactic that serves to take full control of SCOTUS as soon as one party gains both the WH and Senate. No vacancies are required. This tactic ensures that SCOTUS becomes 100% political. While the use of that tactic right now would tip the scale back to the left getting you what you want at the moment it would also completely and permanently remove the SCOTUS standing as a relatively neutral body of power and instead place all the SCOTUS power into the hands of the WH and the Senate. A very very bad thing to do. This is a reasonable take, but the Court has been expanded and reduced before. Why would only now be the only time when doing so would politicize the Court? I'd really like to know how many seats the powers that be would pursue here. I said I would only add one seat in the interest of an ostensible compromise. This would not provide "full control" or any Democratic control, for that matter. Obviously, though, there's virtually no chance of that being their plan.
April 11, 20214 yr They claim that GOP filled two seats that should have gone to the democrats, so add those two seats bringing court to 11. IMO it should stay at nine.
April 11, 20214 yr Author 51 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said: They claim that GOP filled two seats that should have gone to the democrats. If we're really being fair, they stole one seat, not two. The Barrett nomination just had terrible optics because of what Mitch claimed to be his reason for blocking the Garland nomination a full 10 months before Obama's term expired, but Mitch simply made up that "rule." The Barrett move wasn't unconstitutional, it was just nakedly hypocritical. He didn't just steal a seat in 2016, though; he created a categorically new level of vitriol and petty partisanship. Had he never made such a spurious claim, there probably would've been little outrage about filling the vacancy left by Ginsburg's death, regardless of how late it came. "Thems the breaks," as the saying goes, at least that's how I would've seen it. You would've essentially had both Trump and Obama filling a SCOTUS vacancy in the twilight of their terms. Fine, that's balance.
April 11, 20214 yr 56 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: This is a reasonable take, but the Court has been expanded and reduced before. Why would only now be the only time when doing so would politicize the Court? It has been 150 years since the number changed. Now most certainly wouldn't be "the only time". FDR attempted to change the size and was stopped as it was understood that "court packing" was not a good thing. Here is what the Senate said about FDR's packing attempt: Quote The Senate Judiciary Committee decried the president’s reform bill as "an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.”
April 11, 20214 yr Author 7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Here is what the Senate said about FDR's packing attempt: Right, and I've said that the memory of this looms large in my mind, but when FDR did it, it kind of came out of nowhere. The impetus was the Court's striking down provisions of the New Deal. It was very much a direct response to how the Court was operating. You could argue that this was interference. In the current case, it is a corrective action being taken in response to a series of dirty tricks played by the guys responsible for filling the seats. In this case, Congress is interfering with democratic norms, and this is is an attempted check on Congressional overreach. The two situations are arguably more different than they are similar.
April 11, 20214 yr Just now, EaglesRocker97 said: Right, and I've said that the memory this looms large in my mind, but when FDR did it, it kind of came out of nowhere. The impetus was the Court striking down provisions of the New Deal. It was very much a direct response to how the Court was operating. In this case, it is a corrective action being taken in response to a series of dirty tricks played by the guys responsible for filling the seats. It is a check on Congressional overreach. The two situations are arguably more different than they are similar. The situation may be different but the lack of quality in such a measure remains. I think we've beaten this one as much as we can. I agree with your premise that the left is owed one. I do not agree with your suggested solution which to me makes things far far far worse overall. Even if the left is temporarily pacified and the right deserved it how do you reconcile this type of move with the nearly 40% of the population who are neither Democrat or Republican and who stand only to lose from such a back and forth?
April 11, 20214 yr 4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: No, but they did "stack the Court," let's put it that way. The effect is essentially the same. Why would either side ever nominate a judge they didnt like?
April 11, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: If we're really being fair, they stole one seat, not two. The Barrett nomination just had terrible optics because of what Mitch claimed to be his reason for blocking the Garland nomination a full 10 months before Obama's term expired, but Mitch simply made up that "rule." The Barrett move wasn't unconstitutional, it was just nakedly hypocritical. He didn't just steal a seat in 2016, though; he created a categorically new level of vitriol and petty partisanship. Had he never made such a spurious claim, there probably would've been little outrage about filling the vacancy left by Ginsburg's death, regardless of how late it came. "Thems the breaks," as the saying goes, at least that's how I would've seen it. You would've essentially had both Trump and Obama filling a SCOTUS vacancy in the twilight of their terms. Fine, that's balance. Play to win the game right?
April 11, 20214 yr Author 9 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Why would either side ever nominate a judge they didnt like? The funny thing is that Garland was a lifelong Republican who was widely respected within the GOP establishment. His nomination was intended as an olive branch to the Senate's intransigent right wing after six years of unprecedented obstruction. In response, Mitch lowered the bar further by making a farce out their solemn duty. 10 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Play to win the game right? That's certainly how Mitch saw it.
April 11, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: That's certainly how Mitch saw it. The question is "what is the game”. China is watching.
April 11, 20214 yr 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: The funny thing is that Garland was a lifelong Republican who was widely respected within the GOP establishment. His nomination was intended as an olive branch to the Senate's intransigent right wing after six years of unprecedented obstruction. In response, Mitch lowered the bar further by making a farce out their solemn duty. That's certainly how Mitch saw it. Have to understand it comes to that when dealing with mutually exclusive philosophies. they should have voted him down in cmtw no doubt. End difference was minimal. Same butthurt children on the left 32 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: The question is "what is the game”. China is watching. China certainly will understands how the change the rules to get what you want...
April 11, 20214 yr 26 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: China certainly will understands how the change the rules to get what you want... Yeah but more importantly they will happily watch if our system weakens.
April 11, 20214 yr 21 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Yeah but more importantly they will happily watch if our system weakens. They hardly care about our judicial system military and security is all they watch
April 11, 20214 yr 49 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: They hardly care about our judicial system military and security is all they watch They care about the overall health of our society and aim to exploit every weakness.
April 12, 20214 yr On 4/10/2021 at 6:12 PM, Freedom 76 said: The Commiecrats want to make the SCOTUS a Judicial Legislature. Fascist republicans already beat them to the punch on that one.
Create an account or sign in to comment