RBG leaves the stage.

angrysoba said:
2.) Isn't the idea of packing the court (some Democrats have talked about this) in the event of a Biden and Senate victory, a stupid short-term measure that is bound to backfire?

I would completely support the Democrats trying to delay the appointment as long as possible, and also to broadcast the Republican hypocrisy up to 11. I think packing the court is a bad idea and one that is bound to be exploited by the Republicans.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't know.

The argument might be "If the democrats do it, then the republicans will be free to do it in the future". The problem with that argument is that there is no guarantee that, if the Democrats hold back, that the republicans still won't still do it in the future.

Republicans have broken all sorts of norms... they impeached Clinton after an investigation that was... rather dubious. They invoked the nuclear option on supreme court justices, something Obama and the democrats did not do. The democrats could decide to 'play nice', leave the supreme court with 9 judges (and a republican majority), and STILL have the republicans decide to expand and pack the court the next time they control the white house and senate.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This really has been the "Oh crap" political realization of the last few years.

Our politicians got so used to wizards duel of procedural rule lawyering that on some level they forgot that the rules were often self imposed.

Which is why I've been so frustrated the last few years with Democrats and their flustered "But the rules say you can't do that!" reaction to so much.

Who are they talking to? What rule keeper are they invoking to react to the rules being broken?

The reason you don't headbutt or hit below the belt in boxing is because the ref will stop the fight and you will lose.

When the Republicans headbutt or hit below the belt the Democrats scream foul at a Ref who isn't there.
Click to expand...


Or they might liken the Dems to Tonya Harding. Oh, noes!!! see post #420
 
Segnosaur said:
Personally, I don't know.

The argument might be "If the democrats do it, then the republicans will be free to do it in the future". The problem with that argument is that there is no guarantee that, if the Democrats hold back, that the republicans still won't still do it in the future.

Republicans have broken all sorts of norms... they impeached Clinton after an investigation that was... rather dubious. They invoked the nuclear option on supreme court justices, something Obama and the democrats did not do. The democrats could decide to 'play nice', leave the supreme court with 9 judges (and a republican majority), and STILL have the republicans decide to expand and pack the court the next time they control the white house and senate.
Click to expand...

I agree. The Democrats should stop worrying about what the Trumpublicans will do or say because they'll do it anyway. "Oh we can't try medicare for all, they'll call us socialists!!" They're calling you socialists already.
 
angrysoba said:
... Isn't the idea of packing the court (some Democrats have talked about this) in the event of a Biden and Senate victory, a stupid short-term measure that is bound to backfire?
Click to expand...
Yes. Which us why they should adopt my plan: Appoint everybody to the court. This is so impervious to being undone that the threat alone could be used to force sweeping reforms.
 
I wonder why they're waiting to get a nominee before confirming. Why not just go ahead and confirm with a blank check, and let Trump choose the appointee afterward? That way the Senate Republicans can demonstrate their loyalty to the king, and the king can in turn give the appointment to one of his sons or his son-in-law.
 
varwoche said:
Yes. Which us why they should adopt my plan: Appoint everybody to the court. This is so impervious to being undone that the threat alone could be used to force sweeping reforms.
Click to expand...

Okay I don't know at what point this stop being a joke and started being seriously proposed but that's insane.

There whole reason we have "a government" is so we don't all have to do everything.

I don't want to get a phone call in the middle of the night every time we have to decide a legal issue.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I wonder why they're waiting to get a nominee before confirming. Why not just go ahead and confirm with a blank check, and let Trump choose the appointee afterward? That way the Senate Republicans can demonstrate their loyalty to the king, and the king can in turn give the appointment to one of his sons or his son-in-law.
Click to expand...

You joke but I've had the same thought. I seriously wonder what would happen if they just went ahead and approved "Whoever Trump picks whenever he gets around to picking them."
 
JoeMorgue said:
You joke but I've had the same thought. I seriously wonder what would happen if they just went ahead and approved "Whoever Trump picks whenever he gets around to picking them."
Click to expand...

That might actually work because Trump would put it on the ol' back burner.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay I don't know at what point this stop being a joke and started being seriously proposed but that's insane.

There whole reason we have "a government" is so we don't all have to do everything.

I don't want to get a phone call in the middle of the night every time we have to decide a legal issue.
Click to expand...
Yes it's insane, but no it's not a joke whatsoever. I wish I could incept the concept into Kamala.

You're constantly dismissive of sane measures -- understandably, because we've all learned that checks and balances are based on the honor system, and the honor system requires that people are honorable.

The only thing that stands in the way of a solution is defeatist lack of imagination. (And the presidency. And the Senate.) The threat alone should force reconciliation/reform. But even if the concept was implemented, you wouldn't need to cast votes. The blue advantage is considerable.
 
varwoche said:
Yes it's insane, but no it's not a joke whatsoever. I wish I could incept the concept into Kamala.

You're constantly dismissive of sane measures -- understandably, because we've all learned that checks and balances are based on the honor system, and the honor system requires that people are honorable.

The only thing that stands in the way of a solution is defeatist lack of imagination. (And the presidency. And the Senate.) The threat alone should force reconciliation/reform. But even if the concept was implemented, you wouldn't need to cast votes. The blue advantage is considerable.
Click to expand...

That would turn America into a Theocracy Via Mob Rule.

The "The Giant Invisible Sky Wizard must be kept pleased" demographic is both bigger than and transcends the Red/Blue divide.

You assume the politics is the only divide we have to worry about and everything can be solved by just giving "The people" power. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
But their job is to evaluate Constitutional claims. If the best that can be achieved is plausible, and their 6-3 rulings are plausible, then what is the problem?
Click to expand...

And in the case of the Supreme Court, many rulings over the years, especially when degrading rights for people who aren't straight white men, have been based on laughable ideas - such as overturning the 1857 Civil Rights bill, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and the recent Shelby decision that simply invented a new "states' right" in order to gut the Voting Rights Act.

(Also true of many progressive rulings, by the way - the actual problem with "separate but equal" was easy to see once one compared the modern whites only schools, and compared them to the one-room shanties that comprised black schools.)
 
Mumbles said:
And in the case of the Supreme Court, many rulings over the years, especially when degrading rights for people who aren't straight white men, have been based on laughable ideas - such as overturning the 1857 Civil Rights bill, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and the recent Shelby decision that simply invented a new "states' right" in order to gut the Voting Rights Act.

(Also true of many progressive rulings, by the way - the actual problem with "separate but equal" was easy to see once one compared the modern whites only schools, and compared them to the one-room shanties that comprised black schools.)
Click to expand...

I call my position liberal originalism. The biggest problem with originalism is ambiguity around original meaning. But there is a strain of liberal criticism of originalism that goes like this, "if we practiced originalism, case x [brown v board, loving v virginia, etc] would have went the other way."

But that argument removes the big criticism....it removes claims of ambiguity. So there is an obvious answer.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I call my position liberal originalism.
Click to expand...

Giving your contrarian mentalblock a name accomplishes nothing Bob.

Your persona keeps pretending it doesn't understand that in the real world things have to actually work and accomplish things, not just be so philosophically pure they constantly stall out at not being able live up to their own standards and pat themselves on the back for it.

The American public wants and deserves a SCOTUS that can actually make decisions when needed, not just stay trapped forever in a vaporlocked existential crisis like you want it to, same as you want every argument to stay stuck at forever.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Giving your contrarian mentalblock a name accomplishes nothing Bob.

Your persona keeps pretending it doesn't understand that in the real world things have to actually work and accomplish things, not just be so philosophically pure they constantly stall out at not being able live up to their own standards.
Click to expand...

Other than preference for it, why does it have to accomplish things? Is there some immutable property of the universe that physically prevents implementing something that accomplishes nothing?

The khmer rouge accomplished nothing for three years.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The American public wants and deserves a SCOTUS that can actually make decisions when needed, not just stay trapped forever in a vaporlocked existential crisis like you want it to, same as you want every argument to stay stuck at forever.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. I want what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom