Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden could and should take the hyperpartisan inaction of the Supreme court as the argument for massively increasing the size of the Bench.
 
uke2se said:
Pretty sure the many women in Texas who won't be able to get an abortion would disagree.
Click to expand...

You really need to try and stay at at least in the same ballpark. How are the Dems accepting the TX law? Biden is looking into ways they can legally have it nullified. Or do you suggest they just go gangbusters and take the TX legislators hostage until they rescind it?

Mr Biden said he had asked the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to see what steps the national government could take to "insulate women and providers", but did not provide further details.

He said the law violated the landmark Roe v Wade case in 1973, in which the Supreme Court legalised abortion across the US. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the president had long wanted to see the "codification" of Roe v Wade - which would mean Congress voting to make the precedent federal law.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58424249
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Biden could and should take the hyperpartisan inaction of the Supreme court as the argument for massively increasing the size of the Bench.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. So what do you think would happen the next time, and there will be a next time, that the GOP controls all three branches if Biden were to do that?
 
Stacyhs said:
Absolutely not. So what do you think would happen the next time, and there will be a next time, that the GOP controls all three branches if Biden were to do that?
Click to expand...

Do you really think that the GOP would not expand the court if they didn't already have a conservative majority, whether or not the Democrats expanded the court now? If so, please outline why given the massive amount of norm-breaking behavior from the GOP in order to accrue power.
 
I think the US should adopt the Canadian rule that Supreme Court Justices (and all other federally appointed judges) must retire at age 75.
This would allow for a reasonable turnover of judges and stop people with giant egos (like RBG) from getting the idea that they were the saviors of the world and must hang on to the last second no matter how much it would hurt the court and country in the long run.
 
Stacyhs said:
You really need to try and stay at at least in the same ballpark. How are the Dems accepting the TX law? Biden is looking into ways they can legally have it nullified. Or do you suggest they just go gangbusters and take the TX legislators hostage until they rescind it?


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58424249
Click to expand...

No, I am suggesting the expand the Supreme Court and protect women's bodily autonomy from the attack it is currently under. I see no other way to achieve that objective, and I don't think any Demcratic polititian do either, or they would have suggested it.
 
Stacyhs said:
Absolutely not. So what do you think would happen the next time, and there will be a next time, that the GOP controls all three branches if Biden were to do that?
Click to expand...

absolutely yes.
the current size is completely arbitrary, and given the GOP shenanigans of blocking judges under Democrat Presidents, adding a number of judges is the only rational thing to do.
Never might that the entire Federal Bench is objectively much too small to cope with the workload, and should be massively expanded just to safeguard the rule of law.
 
Stacking the Supreme Court just because one party doesn't like what it did and changing its members to fit that party's own agenda is about as short-sighted and flagrantly partisan as it gets. Which is what some of you are moaning about.

If you want to destabilize and undermine the SC's position in this country, then just start playing musical chairs with its justices every time something doesn't go your way.

I'm not happy at all with what happened with Garland and then with Coney Barrett, but that needs to be prevented from happening again by Congress, not by undermining the SC.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
absolutely yes.
the current size is completely arbitrary, and given the GOP shenanigans of blocking judges under Democrat Presidents, adding a number of judges is the only rational thing to do.
Never might that the entire Federal Bench is objectively much too small to cope with the workload, and should be massively expanded just to safeguard the rule of law.
Click to expand...

It's been 9 judges since the 19th century so there is precedent. But we weren't talking increasing its size in order to handle a bigger workload, but to stack it in favor of one political party. That was uke2se's agenda.

I'd have no problem with increasing the number of judges if it were approved by a bi-partisan Congress in order to handle a larger workload but not for the partisan reasons given by uke2se.
 
Where are you going to find a bipartisan Congress these days?


Roosevelt in effect blackmail the Supreme Court into not opposing the New Deal by threatening Court packing.
And while not popular, it wasn't really in dispute that he could have done it.
 
Stacyhs said:
It's been 9 judges since the 19th century so there is precedent. But we weren't talking increasing its size in order to handle a bigger workload, but to stack it in favor of one political party. That was uke2se's agenda.

I'd have no problem with increasing the number of judges if it were approved by a bi-partisan Congress in order to handle a larger workload but not for the partisan reasons given by uke2se.
Click to expand...

My agenda is rather to stop the attack on basic rights set in motion by the other political party hijacking the court for their political agenda. The system is already broken. The sooner you realize that and start acting accordingly, the sooner suffering in the US is reduced.

ETA: "You" is the royal "you".
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Where are you going to find a bipartisan Congress these days?
Click to expand...

The Congress can and does find things they can agree on. If they both think it's a good thing for them, they'll vote for it. Neither side wants to see the other side be able to add or subtract SC justices whenever its convenient for them.

Roosevelt in effect blackmail the Supreme Court into not opposing the New Deal by threatening Court packing.
And while not popular, it wasn't really in dispute that he could have done it.
Click to expand...



Untrue. While FDR proposed stacking the court, it was not popular among his own Dems and the Dems in the Senate Judiciary Committee stalled the bill. Even his own VP opposed it. While FDR may have thought he could stack the court legally, that was never tested as the bill never came up for a vote. It is untrue that "it wasn't really in dispute that he could have done it."

The law was established in 1869 that the SC would have nine justice. See the Judiciary Act o 1869.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
The Congress can and does find things they can agree on. If they both think it's a good thing for them, they'll vote for it. Neither side wants to see the other side be able to add or subtract SC justices whenever its convenient for them.
Click to expand...

This is dangerously naïve.

Republicans in congress might sign off on an infrastructure deal in order to appear to do something for the American people, but they will never ever mess with the long term project of one party control of the US.
 
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The Congress can and does find things they can agree on. If they both think it's a good thing for them, they'll vote for it. Neither side wants to see the other side be able to add or subtract SC justices whenever its convenient for them.
Click to expand...
uke2se said:
This is dangerously naïve.

Republicans in congress might sign off on an infrastructure deal in order to appear to do something for the American people, but they will never ever mess with the long term project of one party control of the US.
Click to expand...

And you are dangerously paranoid. While I despise Trump and his cronies I do not believe every Republican in Congress is an evil closeted jackbooted fascist. I've talked before about extremists who see things in only black and white... either all good or all bad... and you are a good example that this trait doesn't only exist on the extreme right.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
I do not believe every Republican in Congress is an evil closeted jackbooted fascist.
Click to expand...

FWIW, they don't need to be evil closeted jackbooted fascists if they can be cowed into submission by the darker side of the Right. Which, by the evidence at hand... most of them can be cowed into submission as a matter of course.
 
Stacyhs said:
And you are dangerously paranoid. While I despise Trump and his cronies I do not believe every Republican in Congress is an evil closeted jackbooted fascist. I've talked before about extremists who see things in only black and white... either all good or all bad... and you are a good example that this trait doesn't only exist on the extreme right.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The almost complete lack of censure for any of President Trump's actions from GOP representatives who planned to seek re-election shows that they're fully on-board with the Republican plans to retain power regardless of the demographic shifts in the US and the impact that will have on GOP support.

Where were all the "moderate Republicans" who are interested in bipartisan cooperation from November 2016 until January 2021 ?

Where are the GOP representatives who support voting rights ?

Who are the Republican senators who called out McConnell for his hypocrisy over the Supreme Court appointments ?
 
Stacyhs said:
And you are dangerously paranoid. While I despise Trump and his cronies I do not believe every Republican in Congress is an evil closeted jackbooted fascist. I've talked before about extremists who see things in only black and white... either all good or all bad... and you are a good example that this trait doesn't only exist on the extreme right.
Click to expand...

I don't believe every Republican in Congress is an evil closeted jackbooted fascist either, although quite a few are. I do believe - with good cause - that the GOP electorate as a whole have been so poisoned by decades of propaganda that they have evolved into a proto-fascist movement, and that all Republicans in congress with one or two exceptions are huge cowards who are willing to undermine democracy in order to please the base.

You are going to fail to act rationally to protect democracy in the US because you don't appreciate the danger you are in.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom