RBG leaves the stage.

[Safe-Keeper]

"I'm not a supporter, I'm just going to defend him every single time" is the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" of politics.

Or the "I'm not a CTer, I just have a few questions!" of the CT forums.

 

[angrysoba]

Huh. I guess you don't know as well as I do what prevents the President from adding ten more seats to the Supreme Court whenever he wants. It's not tradition and fair play. It's the law. Adding more seats to the court requires new legislation.

Oh, well that is merely another process that the Dems could potentially do if they control both chambers of Congress.*

*Personally I am against that "solution" as not only would it make a mockery of the Supreme Court, but it is just the kind of thing I can see the Democrats trying and failing to do (either because the legislation gets help up in a filibuster, some Dems get cold feet, some - such as Bernie Sanders - who has already stated his objections to doing so, etc...)

 

[Segnosaur]

Huh. I guess you don't know as well as I do what prevents the President from adding ten more seats to the Supreme Court whenever he wants. It's not tradition and fair play. It's the law. Adding more seats to the court requires new legislation.

Oh, well that is merely another process that the Dems could potentially do if they control both chambers of Congress.*

*Personally I am against that "solution" as not only would it make a mockery of the Supreme Court...

Some might say that the supreme court is already a mockery... given the fact that 2 (and likely 3) justices were picked by a russian-backed con-artist who failed to get the popular vote, and confirmed by a republican led senate who's states represented less than a majority of the population.

but it is just the kind of thing I can see the Democrats trying and failing to do (either because the legislation gets help up in a filibuster

I think the assumption there is that the Democrats would eliminate the filibuster, so that shouldn't be an issue.

some Dems get cold feet, some - such as Bernie Sanders - who has already stated his objections to doing so, etc...)

Yes, that is a risk, and they would have to make sure they have enough votes to proceed if they attempt it.

I suspect some of the Dems (or even Sanders) might decide to go along with expanding the court if Trump manages to get another hard-right anti-abortionist on the court.

 

[Blue Mountain]

One view I have of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is it would be done by the Democrats in the hope that the next Republican administration would understand it was done to counterbalance an obviously stacked court, and allow those additional two seats to disappear by attrition.

Unfortunately this assumes the Republicans start playing honourably again, which is by no means guaranteed. The current incarnation of the party is "the end justifies the means," where the end game is a far right conservative country with old rich white males in charge and everyone else essentially a serf beholden to them and their corporations.

 

[Segnosaur]

One view I have of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is it would be done by the Democrats in the hope that the next Republican administration would understand it was done to counterbalance an obviously stacked court, and allow those additional two seats to disappear by attrition.



Unfortunately this assumes the Republicans start playing honourably again, which is by no means guaranteed. The current incarnation of the party is "the end justifies the means," where the end game is a far right conservative country with old rich white males in charge and everyone else essentially a serf beholden to them and their corporations.

Actually I think the hope would be that the republicans would not be in control of both the house and senate simultaneously at the time a supreme Court vacancy opens up, for at least 2 or 3 terms.

As for the republicans playing"honorably" again... Not likely with the current bunch of Congress critters... but perhaps with a decade or so in the political wilderness, with a voting base that is composed of a demographic that is shrinking, might make them rethink the way they do their business.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

Some might say that the supreme court is already a mockery... given the fact that 2 (and likely 3) justices were picked by a russian-backed con-artist who failed to get the popular vote, and confirmed by a republican led senate who's states represented less than a majority of the population.

Well, that is not a critique of the Supreme Court so much as it is to say that the electoral college (or maybe the Constitution as a whole) is a mockery of democracy.

I think the assumption there is that the Democrats would eliminate the filibuster, so that shouldn't be an issue.

If the attempt doesn't get filibustered.

I suspect some of the Dems (or even Sanders) might decide to go along with expanding the court if Trump manages to get another hard-right anti-abortionist on the court.

Still quite a few maybes there, then.

 

[tanabear]

Steven Ernest Sailer is an American journalist, movie critic, white nationalist, and columnist. He is a former correspondent for UPI and a columnist for Taki's Magazine and VDARE, a website associated with white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right.

Link

Steve Sailer can go **** himself.

You also forgot to mention that Steve Sailer is a racist, a reactionary, a counter-revolutionary and likes The Clash.

All of these terms are just used to indicate a non-believer in the Cult of Diversity. Every cult needs words to distinguish a true believer from a heretic.

Islam has infidels. The Cult of Diversity has racists.

As for the white supremacists in this thread...y'all can argue with them as you please, but these efforts rarely bear fruit.

Yes. It's like playing chess against AlphaZero.

No. "You support diversity but you are hypocrtical, whereas I support White Power and I'm totally consistent" is the argument of an *******. It's always more difficult to do the right thing perfectly than it is to do the wrong thing consistently.

Okay, but the Notorious RBG didn't seem to care about diversity when it came to who she hired as a law clerk. She hired only one somewhat black person in 40 years as a judge. But she was more than happy to use her power as a Supreme Court Justice to try to force diversity down the throats of the white working class.

But behind every supposed double-standard, there is a single standard. Diversity is a poison administered to societies and institutions you wish to enervate or destroy. You want to convince your enemy to drink the poison but you don't dare drink it yourself. You try to convince your enemy that it is really a tonic hoping he'll fall for the swindle.

In the end that is all the modern Left is, snake-oil salesmen.

Steve Sailer: When asked by the Senate in 1993 why she hadn’t ever hired a single black during her 13 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second most prestigious court, she implied that she wouldn’t miss out on the really good blacks once she was on the Supreme Court. And indeed she did find one black good enough to work for her, Watford, during her 27 years on the Supreme Court.

 

[angrysoba]

You also forgot to mention that Steve Sailer is a racist, a reactionary, a counter-revolutionary and likes The Clash.

Nothing wrong with the Clash. I doubt they would have had good things to say about him though.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

To function, the SC needs to reflect the prevailing sense of justice in society - if it becomes too partisan, it will not be seen as legitimate.
Dems might have to expand the Court to safe it if Trump's appointees don't move drastically to the center.

 

[varwoche]

You also forgot to mention that Steve Sailer is a racist...

VDARE should get due credit as the origin of alt-right. They were the first to cloak white supremacy in a suit and tie. Yeah, he's a racist.

Your point might stand irrespective of Sailer's noxious traits. The problem is, one of those traits is a proclivity to foist bull ****. Citing Steve Sailer is guaranteed to prompt flack. Why did you cite him?

If i learn that it's true what he and you say, I will think less of RBG. I'm not visiting the garbage you're foisting to find out though.

 

[Delvo]

One view I have of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is it would be done by the Democrats in the hope that the next Republican administration would understand it was done to counterbalance an obviously stacked court, and allow those additional two seats to disappear by attrition.

I think the hope would be that the republicans would not be in control of both the house and senate simultaneously at the time a supreme Court vacancy opens up, for at least 2 or 3 terms.

I haven't heard anyone who advocates doing this say what they expect to happen if/when Republicans are back in control, so it's possible that they haven't considered it at all, or that they have some other kind of plan in mind.

To me, it's not only a bit premature to contemplate being able to do it at all when the Senate has not flipped and might not (and probably won't really flip even if it technically flips, since at least a few Democrats will always go along with the Republicans), but also pointless if they don't also do something to shift future elections toward the Democrats so those future Republican Congresses we're pondering just don't happen. Otherwise all that even bringing it up does is tell the Republicans another way for them to rig everything in their own favor that they weren't talking about doing before.

And they wouldn't even need to make anything unfair/rigged in their favor; all they would need to do is un-rig some of the ways in which everything is currently rigged for the Republicans instead. If the party that gets the most votes actually won things in this country, the Federal level would already be Democrat-dominated. Some number of elections later, they could still end up losing again eventually, especially given their current strategy of driving away as many of their own voters as they can that's dug in to Democrats' strategic thinking like a tick over years & years, but it will take some time for that effect to shift things back toward the Republicans enough for the Republicans to start winning again without the system rigged in their favor, and that time could be long enough that people are just used to that Supreme Court size by then (just like people are used to its current size since the last time it was tinkered with).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Some of you guys had replies that were sufficiently well written to merit a response. But I was working and didn't have the time to answer as they happened. So here are a few:

By pro-life, you mean you are opposed to abortion in all instances (except presumably when it is required to save the life of the mother - I will assume you can consistently argue for that!)?

Yes. The rare case of a good assumption that is not a strawman. Important nuance about pro-life vs anti-abortion is the fact that the risk to the mother's life is also important. So if there is a medical need for abortion, they should not be banned, but if there is no medical need and both the mother and the child would otherwise be healthy, I am very much against killing the unborn child.

Just out of interest, do you think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs Wade? And if so, do you think that an appointment of a conservative justice will result in this?

Yes, maybe.

Do you have some idea here of how this (breaking trusts and the Friedman doctrine) will play out with a conservative Supreme Court?

No I don't. This will require the right sort of legislation I think.

I can't remember if it is a real conversation, or an apocryphal story, but I seem to recall that following Indian independence, Jinnah argued that it was necessary for a Muslim state to protect them from Hindu nationalists. Apparently Gandhi was shocked at the idea, and said that he would never bear any ill-will towards India's Muslim population, and Jinnah replied that this is completely true, but not everyone is Gandhi.

Of course, Muslims and Hindus kill each other over their own completely non-existent gods all the time. The fact that there is no scientific basis for their squabbles doesn't change that.

And unfortunately, when it comes to race, not everyone is Gandhi Red Baron Farms. People will still discriminate on the basis of perceived racial distinctions no matter how colour blind you personally are.

Interesting story, but I might add that racism at this point is institutionalized in our government, both state and federal. I believe affirmative action laws, regulations, and various other government programs are breaking this. And this should be overthrown by the court. Clearly the 14th amendment forbids States doing this, but it is not so clear for federal law. (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States) Notice that it does not say any particular race of citizen and it includes privileges? Affirmative action programs are absolutely giving one poorly defined group privilege to government programs over another. It may require modification of the 14th amendment to obtain clarity that this should not be present at the federal level either. I am not a law student. It is possible that particular point has already been handled, if so, then it needs enforced at both the State and Federal level.

And yes people do have a tendency to discriminate anyway. However removing institutionalized racism from our government would be a very big step forward, and yet at the same time very conservative in ideology. You can lead a horse to water, but cant make him drink. However, just because you can't force him to drink, doesn't mean you are then justified in never leading him to water in the first place.

Is there anything specific that you would like to see changed here? I mean, is it a commitment to states' rights on the bearing arms, or is it that you would like to see some federal ban on gun bans? The only thing I can see here is that the Supreme Court may rule fitness tests unconstitutional, or that DC or other places must overturn bans on guns.

Is there anything specific that you would like to see a conservative court do?

Depending on how the gun legislation is written yes. I have no problem with gun control legislation designed to remove the right to bear arms from those convicted of preclusive criminal activity, but I think that many gun laws focused on the gun itself, or a certain style of ammunition etc... may be unconstitutional and should be modified or overthrown.

You mean the Chinese Hoax? Why would you throw in your lot with Donald Clean Coal Trump? I cannot think of a more powerful group of climate change deniers than the GOP.

I do not support either, and it is why I did not vote for Trump the first time. But it is important to note I don't support the Democrats proposed legislation either. Very highly flawed in several ways.

So naturally you want a judge that would want to eliminate Chevron deference and otherwise cripple the federal government's ability to regulate environmental issues.

Absolutely correct. This is a flawed approach to solve the problem, ironically creating as many environmental problems as it solves. California wildfires being a perfect example.

You do realize, dont you, that the GOP are against 2 (or maybe 3?) out of those 4, right? And their judges are hoped to be of the same stripe.

I realize I have no good choices in this election, yes. In many cases I am forced to choose one side or the other in a false dichotomy, while the important logical and beneficial thing for the country goes unaddressed by either side.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

no one has good choices in Elections, only less bad ones.

 

[The Atheist]

no one has good choices in Elections, only less bad ones.

Noam Chomsky did a good piece on that subject a couple of months back - the lesser of two evils is a genuine consideration.

 

[BobTheCoward]

no one has good choices in Elections, only less bad ones.

Except for all those old people that actually like Biden's positions.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Except for all those old people that actually like Biden's positions.

I doubt anyone will like every political position that a candidate has, simply because that position is the result of compromises (or in Trump's case extremes).

That is why people feel it's more important to like the Candidate, because they trust he will act in their best interest even if he doesn't do exactly as he said he would.

 

[Venom]

Noam Chomsky did a good piece on that subject a couple of months back - the lesser of two evils is a genuine consideration.

And got called a liberal for it by leftist commentators, people who appear to prefer being bogged down by their political handicaps than doing something about it.

 

[Elagabalus]

Noam Chomsky did a good piece on that subject a couple of months back - the lesser of two evils is a genuine consideration.

That man should have his navy-blue sweater vest revoked!

 

[Craig4]

I am a pro lifer,
Other issues I feel are important

1. anti trust, especially anti Friedman doctrine
2. anti racism, and that includes anti affirmative action. Race should never even enter into the conversation. I am not a white man. I am not a red man. I am a man. And I don't have Black friends, or Asian friends, or Hispanic friends, or White friends, they are just friends. Race doesn't even scientifically exist. Time to move on.
3. Pro gun rights
4. The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.

Where is having a president who is not a filthy Russian whore on your list? How important is that?

 

[Mumbles]

I am a pro lifer,
Other issues I feel are important

1. anti trust, especially anti Friedman doctrine.
2. anti racism, and that includes anti affirmative action. Race should never even enter into the conversation. I am not a white man. I am not a red man. I am a man. And I don't have Black friends, or Asian friends, or Hispanic friends, or White friends, they are just friends. Race doesn't even scientifically exist. Time to move on.
3. Pro gun rights
4. The entire rest of my life I have dedicated to ending global warming, specifically by restoring ecosystem function on about 1/2 the land surface of the planet by improving land management and especially farming practices and bringing the carbon cycle back into balance.

So...basically the exact opposite of what we should expect from the Supreme Court over the next few decades - a pro-monopoly, anti-regulation SC that insists that it's okay for cops to murder anyone of the wrong race who so much as says the word "gun".