Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 23

[Stacyhs]

This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

Yes, it does.

It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base.

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already demonstrated.

Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks?

Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.

I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, it does.

It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base.

You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it?

I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.

 

[Trebuchet]

FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.

If either declare their intentions of resigning between now and when (if) Biden is elected, it will be pretty damn obvious what is going on. But nothing could be done about it and we know that McConnell would push through any judge toute suite despite the hypocrisy of his actions over Garland. McConnell is nothing if not consistent in his hypocrisy.

 

[Bob001]

I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.

Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease. People can be selfish without being stupid.

 

[acbytesla]

FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.

I disagree. It went very well for him. He did it as a threat to get legislation passed. It worked.

 

[Bob001]

You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it?

I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.

You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.

 

[Mojo]

Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease.

Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.

 

[acbytesla]

You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.

The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.

 

[portlandatheist]

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.
There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016

 

[Bob001]

The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.

Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Possibly relevant:

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To
.......
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://constitutionus.com/

 

[dudalb]

I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.

 

[Bob001]

I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.

How will a "major meltdown" look different from his usual rally behavior.

Here's a question: Will the SS agents surrounding him be wearing masks?

 

[acbytesla]

Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Does it now? The law to the best of my knowledge has never been tested. But if you know a case, I'll concede the point.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016

That's actually very common...

In several polls, the number of people who plan to vote for biden is much higher than the number of people who think Biden will win.

Maybe its a good thing for the Democrats... desperation may drive people to the polls. (As long as it doesn't make them defeatist and decide to stay home.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.

Which is what he is already doing. After all, he's achieved more in his 3.5 years
and done more for black people than any president in history!

ETA: and no new healthcare is because of the Dems and Loser McCain.

 

[Segnosaur]

SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get.

If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.

Perhaps Supreme court justices are good "value for the person". There are a couple of problems though;

- To get those supreme court justices, you need to have control of the presidency, and the senate.

- Justices are limited in what they can rule on.... cases must be presented to them (i.e. they can't proactively make rulings.)

- Even a 'friendly' judge may sometimes rule against you, if there is little or no ambiguity in the law. (Witness Gorsuch and the recent gay ruling)

A president may only be in power 4 or 8 years, but in that time they can issue executive orders over a much wider range of areas proactively, and while they may be constrained by law, they can also play a role in changing existing laws.

 

[Belz...]

Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Possibly relevant:

http://constitutionus.com/

The law and the constitution are two things.