Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, if this happens as described I will officially lose my faith in this nation for the first time in my life.

Because people could be so easily swayed? Buddy, that's America.

(10-27-2020, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's my point in as succinct a manner as possible.  McConnell's tactics were underhanded and sleazy, but they were within the framework of the existing rules.  He didn't have to change or modify anything.  In fact, all he had to do was nothing, which is what he did.

Contrast that with the proposed court packing.  Packing the court will require a complete change in legislation.  It is changing the rules because they didn't work in your favor and changing them in a way that only benefits you (because no way do they expand the SCOTUS if the GOP keeps hold of the Senate).  This is the very essence of tyranny, imposing your will on others outside the framework of the rules.  Not that it matters because I'm only one person, but if the Dems pack the court then I will never, ever, in my life ever vote for another Democrat and quite honestly would hope that the end up on the ash heap of history with the Whigs.  I'd add that I've never voted GOP in my life.

I have to disagree with you, here. Would it take a legislative act? Yes. But it is within the Constitutional authority of Congress to do just that. It may be a rule change because it changes the law, but it is well within the framework of the rules because the Constitution is that very framework.

[GMDino]

One thought I had is I think more than a few people on the right are really opposed to the expanding/packing of the SC because it would mean they held their nose and supported Trump trying to get those seats to lean right and it would have all be for naught.

And again, I'm not saying I for it...I'm just saying the arguments against have been lacking.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 04:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because people could be so easily swayed? Buddy, that's America.


I have to disagree with you, here. Would it take a legislative act? Yes. But it is within the Constitutional authority of Congress to do just that. It may be a rule change because it changes the law, but it is well within the framework of the rules because the Constitution is that very framework.

I never claimed it was outside the framework of the law for it to be changed, but that's never been my point to begin with.  My point is that one is a dramatic, if not drastic, rule change and the other is operating within the framework of the existing rules.  I cannot countenance changing the rules to only benefit you, whomever is doing it.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Matt flat out stated he agrees with me that packing the court could very well lead to a Civil War.

To be fair, my statement was that I could see it being the match that lit a number of powder kegs that have been piling up for years. Honestly, it's much like the election of Lincoln that kicked off the first one. Lincoln being elected wasn't the reason for the Civil War; there was decades of build up with many other issues building up. Even though Lincoln was not intending to free any slaves when elected, that was the perception of the states that ended up seceding.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 04:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never claimed it was outside the framework of the law for it to be changed, but that's never been my point to begin with.  My point is that one is a dramatic, if not drastic, rule change and the other is operating within the framework of the existing rules.  I cannot countenance changing the rules to only benefit you, whomever is doing it.  

Umm...

(10-27-2020, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Contrast that with the proposed court packing.  Packing the court will require a complete change in legislation.  It is changing the rules because they didn't work in your favor and changing them in a way that only benefits you (because no way do they expand the SCOTUS if the GOP keeps hold of the Senate).  This is the very essence of tyranny, imposing your will on others outside the framework of the rules.  Not that it matters because I'm only one person, but if the Dems pack the court then I will never, ever, in my life ever vote for another Democrat and quite honestly would hope that the end up on the ash heap of history with the Whigs.  I'd add that I've never voted GOP in my life.

I do want to say, though, that there has been a continual changing of the rules going on for decades to benefit each party. Whether it be the "nuclear options," or the idea that deficits and executive overreach are only a thing when the other team has control. Those are rule changes to benefit themselves that happens all the time. Are they as big as expanding the court? No. But they are rule changes none-the-less. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee had to temporarily change (or just ignore enforcement of) their own rule to get the ACB nomination out of their committee to the Senate floor.

What you're disgusted with is politics, to be frank. I get that, I do. I think I have an easier time with it than most because of my experiences and studies.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Umm...

Allow me to rephrase, changing the law is permissible under the law.  However, the action being proposed cannot be undertaken under the law as it exists now.  It wouldn't be against the law to change the law to say only landed white males can vote, but it damn well would be a tyrannical act.  Changing the law is obviously possible, but the fact that you have to do that to take a proposed action should really give a person pause.  I stand by my assertions as to why that is the case.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 04:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, my statement was that I could see it being the match that lit a number of powder kegs that have been piling up for years. Honestly, it's much like the election of Lincoln that kicked off the first one. Lincoln being elected wasn't the reason for the Civil War; there was decades of build up with many other issues building up. Even though Lincoln was not intending to free any slaves when elected, that was the perception of the states that ended up seceding.

Yes, essentially the same thing I am saying.  Yet you didn't get a long post dedicated to your desire to participate in a shooting war against your fellow countrymen.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 05:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, essentially the same thing I am saying.  Yet you didn't get a long post dedicated to your desire to participate in a shooting war against your fellow countrymen.  

Which is funny given that my avatar pretty much advocates for it.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 05:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Allow me to rephrase, changing the law is permissible under the law.  However, the action being proposed cannot be undertaken under the law as it exists now.  It wouldn't be against the law to change the law to say only landed white males can vote, but it damn well would be a tyrannical act.  Changing the law is obviously possible, but the fact that you have to do that to take a proposed action should really give a person pause.  I stand by my assertions as to why that is the case.

I think my issue with your phrasing was with the whole "outside the framework" bit because the Constitution is the framework, so if it is a constitutional action, I don't see it as being outside of the framework of the rules. Your example about landed white males, though, would be unconstitutional, so it would be outside the framework.

Throughout the history of this country, the government has had to change their rules to give themselves more power. I don't see this as much more egregious than any other time, to be honest about it. I just know not everyone else will see it the same.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 05:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is funny given that my avatar pretty much advocates for it.

Yeah, it's almost like the motivation for the post was different than actually stated.

[masterpanthera_t]

(10-27-2020, 05:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think my issue with your phrasing was with the whole "outside the framework" bit because the Constitution is the framework, so if it is a constitutional action, I don't see it as being outside of the framework of the rules. Your example about landed white males, though, would be unconstitutional, so it would be outside the framework.

Throughout the history of this country, the government has had to change their rules to give themselves more power. I don't see this as much more egregious than any other time, to be honest about it. I just know not everyone else will see it the same.

A strong argument. And I think this is why I was hesitant to agree with SSF's point of view of court packing as a tyrannical action, but you've made the argument that was some where deep in my mind which I hadn't quite attempted to get out. Even though I sort of agreed with SSF earlier about court packing being outside of the framework, I think you've shown me why it's not. That was a position that I held before, but kind of forgot that the changing of the laws is itself something given under a larger framework (namely, the Constitution), and this is not tyranny.

Of course pragmatically speaking, it might lead to an arms race (but obviously difficult unless one party again holds all three of the Senate, House and Presidency). Still an arms race that is possible every two decades or so, based on trends.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2020, 01:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with you on both counts.  It also doesn't change my opinion that packing the court would be the most brazen power grab in the history of the United States.  Like we've both said, the possibility of the shooting starting over this is not slight.

This is funny. You don’t think people feel this way about Moscow Mitch changing rules and jamming in three new scotus members?

Rules were changed because of his obstruction. Then he took it even further to pack the scotus.

Elections have consequences. He has gamed the system and packed the court. Was it legal, yes. Was it fair, no.

The majority in this country want fairness. As long as this election isn’t rigged we will get fair.

If anyone starts the shooting it will be morons cut from the same cloth as the ones who plotted to kidnap the Michigan gov or Ohio gov. And quite frankly I don’t give a shit what those types want

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 06:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This is funny. You don’t think people feel this way about Moscow Mitch changing rules and jamming in three new scotus members?

Oh I know they do.  Lots of feelings flying around, which probably explains why everything is in the toilet.  Lots of feelings and not a lot of thinking. 

Quote:Rules were changed because of his obstruction. Then he took it even further to pack the scotus.

A whitewashed version of events, but sure.

Quote:Elections have consequences. He has gamed the system and packed the court. Was it legal, yes. Was it fair, no.

The underlined is interesting coming from someone who's bemoaned nearly every second of the last four years.  I wonder if you'll feel the same way if Trump wins again?

Quote:The majority in this country want fairness. As long as this election isn’t rigged we will get fair.

An interesting qualifier.  For someone who doesn't like Trump you often sound quite a bit like him.

Quote:If anyone starts the shooting it will be morons cut from the same cloth as the ones who plotted to kidnap the Michigan gov or Ohio gov. And quite frankly I don’t give a shit what those types want

Interesting.  I suppose you are right about one thing, Trump certainly brought out the worst in some people.  I, of course, blame those people for their own behavior, but I tend to err on the side of personal responsibility.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2020, 04:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I never claimed it was outside the framework of the law for it to be changed, but that's never been my point to begin with.  My point is that one is a dramatic, if not drastic, rule change and the other is operating within the framework of the existing rules.  I cannot countenance changing the rules to only benefit you, whomever is doing it.  

It's only operating inside the existing rules because the Republicans changed the rules they were operating in to literally make it operating inside the rules.  If the Democrats change the rules then they will be operating within the framework of the existing rules the same way McConnell did.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 06:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's only operating inside the existing rules because the Republicans changed the rules they were operating in to literally make it operating inside the rules.  If the Democrats change the rules then they will be operating within the framework of the existing rules the same way McConnell did.

That's simply not true.  McConnell did not change any rules when he refused to start toe confirmation process.  You can label it as underhanded, sneaky, dishonest, etc. but it absolutely did not involve any change to any rule.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2020, 06:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's simply not true.  McConnell did not change any rules when he refused to start toe confirmation process.  You can label it as underhanded, sneaky, dishonest, etc. but it absolutely did not involve any change to any rule.

You're right.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-08-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm in favor of a stacked Supreme Court


Kate Upton for Justice

This is why you're so short-sighted, Bfine.

Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Appointing Kate Upton to make the Supreme Court stacked might work for NOW... but just imagine how your choice will end up in 20-30-40-50 years. Gravity is a thing.