Ed Justice Barrett

[BobTheCoward]

The real parallel here is john addams appointing a judge after he lost.

 

[The Don]

First, you're using the term "court packing" wrong. Stop that, it only demonstrates you're either clueless or dishonest.

Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.

Second, I can't help your paranoia. But the conservative justices actually have judicial philosophies, and none of them would justify the kind of state over-reach that you're describing.

They'd find a way - to protect unborn children.

But if even that isn't enough, just consider this: they know that if conservative states are allowed to regulate what citizens do outside of those states, then liberal states will be empowered to do the same thing. Why would they want to open the door to that? They don't. Nobody does.

They wouldn't, they'd find a way to slap those states down.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.

Deliberately stopped? They let Obama know that his nominee wouldn't pass. They advised. It wasn't a blanket denial. If Obama nominated ACB I'm positive she would have passed in 2016.

 

[theprestige]

See below.

The president also doesn't have the authority to expand the court.

I can see why some people wouldn't find the "happy birthday Hillary" thing funny. But at least it was short, to the point, and actually landed on her birthday.

Which is not to say a convoluted mess can't be funnier than a pithy zinger. Many a good farce has been written on the strength of a convoluted mess. But I'm not sure Basil Fawlty was quite the look you should be going for, here.

 

[uke2se]

Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.



They'd find a way - to protect unborn children.



They wouldn't, they'd find a way to slap those states down.

This. Consistency isn't necessary when you're on top. It would be really nice if the roles were reversed following next tuesday. Would be fun watching the little ***** squirm.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The president also doesn't have the authority to expand the court.

I can see why some people wouldn't find the "happy birthday Hillary" thing funny. But at least it was short, to the point, and actually landed on her birthday.

Which is not to say a convoluted mess can't be funnier than a pithy zinger. Many a good farce has been written on the strength of a convoluted mess. But I'm not sure Basil Fawlty was quite the look you should be going for, here.

And the answer is to be...more pedantic. OK.

 

[theprestige]

Expanding the courts would require congress passing a law to do so (well within the possibility if the democrats take both the house and senate).

And although Biden couldn't appoint Clinton (or some other left of center person ( he could nominate them, and a democratic controlled senate would likely rubber stamp them. (since as we saw with republicans, actually vetting a nominee is no longer an issue).

Both of those are completely legal, and doesn't require a change in the system of government or a "dictator".

And neither of these are Biden expanding the court and appointing a justice. Q.E.D.

 

[Segnosaur]

Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints HRC ?

That is a really dumb idea.

Hillary Clinton is too old...She would only be able to serve a few years before she died.

Now Chelsea Clinton would be an ideal pick... She's a Clinton, which by itself would drive the republicans into fits, and she's younger (which means she could serve on the courts much longer.) And I can't help but think it would annoy the trump-spawn... "nepotism done right!"

Granted, its not like she has experience as a judge, or, well, even as a lawyer. But hey! If Trump can be an expert in politics, science, foreign affairs, etc. without any background in any of those fields, she can easily become a supreme court judge. She just has to follow her gut!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And neither of these are Biden expanding the court and appointing a justice. Q.E.D.

Acting as if you've never heard of legislation that is passed under a presidents watch referred to as that presidents legislation .... is really odd.

But you do you.

 

[Segnosaur]

First, you're using the term "court packing" wrong. Stop that, it only demonstrates you're either clueless or dishonest.

Second, I can't help your paranoia. But the conservative justices actually have judicial philosophies, and none of them would justify the kind of state over-reach that you're describing.

Actually I suspect those "judicial philosophies" are really only used by judges to justify conclusions that they have already made, and just want some sort of explanation about how/why they ruled. They will either twist the basis of their philosophy to make it fit what they want, or randomly abandon it all together if the need fits.

But if even that isn't enough, just consider this: they know that if conservative states are allowed to regulate what citizens do outside of those states, then liberal states will be empowered to do the same thing. Why would they want to open the door to that? They don't. Nobody does.

The right wing (even right wing judges) are not above engaging in hypocrisy. I am sure they would have no problem holding up (for example) anti-abortion laws (with claims of "states rights"), yet strike down laws passed by more liberal-leaning states as unconstitutional.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither, the Republicans had deliberately stopped justices being appointed by the Democrats - leaving them under strength - then appointed conservative justices. IMO that's no different than inheriting courts which are fully staffed and expanding them.

It is different. The fact that you don't care about the difference doesn't justify deliberate use of the wrong terminology.

They wouldn't, they'd find a way to slap those states down.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually I suspect those "judicial philosophies" are really only used by judges to justify conclusions that they have already made

What you suspect doesn't matter.

I've long noted the tendency of leftists to justify their positions based on ascribing motives to their opponents that their opponents never expressed. It's a very bad habit, but the left seems addicted to it. I could speculate on why the left does so, but that would be hypocritical of me to do so. It is enough to merely note the pattern. And to note that it is not actually persuasive.

 

[theprestige]

The scrutiny would come from courts that the right-wing have packed and would eventually end up in a SCOTUS which had just reversed Roe vs. Wade.

Forgive me if I'm unconvinced of your narrative.

'Sallright. I'm unconvinced by yours.

 

[The Don]

It is different. The fact that you don't care about the difference doesn't justify deliberate use of the wrong terminology.

IAssertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

There's ample evidence of conservative judges making rulings that align with their political, economic or religious dogma. Of course you're free to ignore it.

I can see them ruling that preventing travel from a state where abortion is illegal to a state where it is legal for the purposes of procuring an abortion is illegal because preserving the life of the unborn child (or preventing a murder) is pre-eminent whereas.

I'm not even clear what kind of thing a blue state would make illegal and then prevent people travelling to red states to do.

 

[Craig4]

Which will be funnier ... this post, or when Biden expands the court and appoints NOMINATES HRC (who is subsequently approved by the dem majority senate)?

Edited for PEDANTS

I wonder if Anita Hill is thinking of a career change.

 

[theprestige]

And the answer is to be...more pedantic. OK.

You botched the joke. There's no comedy credit for "... but it would have been funny if I'd told it right!"

And even if you had told it right, it still wouldn't be as funny as the other one.

 

[theprestige]

That is a really dumb idea.

Hillary Clinton is too old...She would only be able to serve a few years before she died.

Now Chelsea Clinton would be an ideal pick... She's a Clinton, which by itself would drive the republicans into fits, and she's younger (which means she could serve on the courts much longer.) And I can't help but think it would annoy the trump-spawn... "nepotism done right!"

Granted, its not like she has experience as a judge, or, well, even as a lawyer. But hey! If Trump can be an expert in politics, science, foreign affairs, etc. without any background in any of those fields, she can easily become a supreme court judge. She just has to follow her gut!

As far as I know, there's no requirement that a federal judge actually be a legal professional. It would be interesting to see a "lay" justice nominated and confirmed. And even if it were Chelsea Clinton, I wouldn't object. I mean, I'd have partisan misgivings about the shift in the court's political makeup, of course. But in terms of procedure and qualifications I don't see a problem.

 

[theprestige]

Acting as if you've never heard of legislation that is passed under a presidents watch referred to as that presidents legislation .... is really odd.

But you do you.

I've heard of it. I think it's a bad thing and we should push back on it, hard. I think it leads to gross misunderstandings about how our government actually works, and who actually has authority and responsibility for the different parts of it. I think people have a wildly over-inflated view of what the president actually is and does. I think people need to spend less time stanning the presidency, and more time thinking seriously about the signifcant role the legislature plays in governing the country and overseeing the executive branch.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's ample evidence of conservative judges making rulings that align with their political, economic or religious dogma. Of course you're free to ignore it.

In other words, they have conservative judicial philosophies.

There is no evidence that they would go 180 degrees against them over something like this. That's purely your own paranoia, it doesn't come from anywhere real.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There are no such things as progressive or Conservative judicial philosophies.

There are only different buzzwords people use to justify their ideological ruling.