Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[*Nately120*]

(10-08-2020, 12:59 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I'm really over this whole race has to be involved in everything thing.  Why can't we just go with the most qualified.  Period.

Nice idea in theory, but I'd argue our current president shows people tend to overestimate the qualifications of plutocratic white men. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-08-2020, 12:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Unless I missed something, you're saying being white makes Trump's nominees unqualified. That's quite the racist take to make on here.

Please show me where I said that

[GMDino]

(10-08-2020, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What do folks consider "jaming through". As I understand it the current admin and senate were elected to serve until 31 DEC 20.

POTUS made his pick only after giving the nation time to pay respects to RBG and I'd assume over 90 days of confirmation cannot be considered "jamming through".

(10-08-2020, 12:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I wonder (not really) if these same folks were mad at Obama for trying to jam through a nomination in 2016 and were glad that the Senate stopped him. 

As I said before:  The same GOP that said "we can't even vote in committee about Obama's nominee" with months left in his term (he was elected to serve his full term too I suppose) are now saying "we absolutely have to put this nominee on the court before we do anything else".  That is the problem.

If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate right now and blocking Trump's appointee I'd say THEY were the problem after they insisted Obama's nominees should get a vote.

The Democrats are asking for consistency and fairness and the Republicans are not ever going to give any of that.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-08-2020, 12:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Unless I missed something, you're saying being white makes Trump's nominees unqualified. That's quite the racist take to make on here.

Here are the results from a 20 second google search and the first result I skimmed through

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominating-unqualified-judges-left-and-right-710263

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-08-2020, 12:31 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: There is literally nothing unconstitutional about Confirming ACB.  The Prez and Senate terms end in January, not October.  Even Ginsberg agreed with this and was against packing the court.

Why was the 9 person court ok with the Dems when it was a 5-4 slant in their favor?
Why is it not ok to have a 5-4 or 6-3 slant to Repubs?
Is only one party allowed that?

The last time the SCOTUS had a liberal majority was 1971. Which means we’ve had a conservative leaning SCOTUS since before you were born. WTF are you talking about?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think we can stop Trump from appointing a new justice, but it is silly to compare an appointment ELEVEN MONTHS before th end of the term to one that takes place AFTER THE VOTING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION HAS ACTUALLY STARTED.

So when do you consider a sitting senate to end? 

[NATI BENGALS]

Some of y’all don’t even attempt to understand the republican corruption and cheating. There were 100+ seats left open because Mitch obstructed and delayed and didn’t do his job.

Judges I thought used to get bipartisan support. Here comes Trump stealing seats that should have been appointed by the previous administration. And jamming them with young partisan unqualified individuals to corrupt our courts for decades.

Most of these appointments have come with party line votes I believe as well which like I said is not how it used to be. More signs of broken government.

[CJD]

(10-08-2020, 12:31 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: There is literally nothing unconstitutional about Confirming ACB.  The Prez and Senate terms end in January, not October.  Even Ginsberg agreed with this and was against packing the court.

Why was the 9 person court ok with the Dems when it was a 5-4 slant in their favor?
Why is it not ok to have a 5-4 or 6-3 slant to Repubs?
Is only one party allowed that?

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I said it was deceptive and underhanded. Which it is; both in the way they denied Obama's pick and the way they are now trying to jam through Trump's pick in an even more extreme version of their initial denial in 2016.


I also did not say there was anything wrong with a 5-4 or 6-3. It is inevitable that there will be an unbalanced court because there are 9 justices. The SC was supposed to be a nonpartisan part of the government, in which they interpret the law unbiasedly. Of course, it was always a joke, but it is even more so now that there are groups who want to reverse past rulings or otherwise drive a partisan agenda through the courts.


I personally think there is opportunity to amend the way in which supreme court justices serve their terms, for example, by giving them term limits. That way you can enter any given election thinking "if the Democrats lose, that means the Republican president will get 2 nominations in his next 4 year term. I don't want that to happen, so I will vote for Biden, even though I normally would not because I care about abortion or LGBTQ rights." I think if some of the Bernie or Busters knew that 3 seats would come due from 2016 to 2020, they'd have been more likely to take Clinton rather than give those seats away to Trump.


Not only that, but it would also mean justices wouldn't have to "survive" until the next president of their general political alignment gets elected. Look at the nomination of Anthony Kennedy, for instance. Lewis Powell was able to retire in 1987, more than a year before Reagan's term was over, because he was confident that the Democratic Senate would not play politics and would rightfully nominate Reagan's pick.

And the Democratic Senate did. You see, the SC wasn't always as political as it is now. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 despite the Democrats holding the majority in the Senate. That idea is now laughable, as we know.



If Powell was a Supreme Court Justice now, he would have felt compelled to stay on the court until he died in 1996 because the Republicans did not hold the Senate and the Presidency until 2003.

I imagine RGB would have loved to retire in 2016 or 2017. Live the last few years with her family away from the stress of political office. But she couldn't because Trump was the president. She knew she had to live until 2021 in order for her seat not to be filled with another conservative, which would likely mean the end to several things that she fought her entire life for.


I can't imagine the toll that took on her and her life.


If we had term limits, this idea of "surviving" presidencies would be a thing of the past. They would just be chosen, serve whatever the term may be. 10, 15, 20 years. And then, when it came due, they'd either be re-chosen (probably if the presidency is held by the same party as was when they were originally chosen) or be replaced in a predictable and unfrenetic manner, as with nearly every other office in politics.


But that's just my perspective.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 01:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think we can stop Trump from appointing a new justice, but it is silly to compare an appointment ELEVEN MONTHS before th end of the term to one that takes place AFTER THE VOTING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION HAS ACTUALLY STARTED.

So you don't think either the Democrats or Republicans are being hypocritical? Well, then.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 01:35 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I didn't say it was unconstitutional. I said it was deceptive and underhanded. Which it is; both in the way they denied Obama's pick and the way they are now trying to jam through Trump's pick in an even more extreme version of their initial denial in 2016.


I also did not say there was anything wrong with a 5-4 or 6-3. It is inevitable that there will be an unbalanced court because there are 9 justices. The SC was supposed to be a nonpartisan part of the government, in which they interpret the law unbiasedly. Of course, it was always a joke, but it is even more so now that there are groups who want to reverse past rulings or otherwise drive a partisan agenda through the courts.


I personally think there is opportunity to amend the way in which supreme court justices serve their terms, for example, by giving them term limits. That way you can enter any given election thinking "if the Democrats lose, that means the Republican president will get 2 nominations in his next 4 year term. I don't want that to happen, so I will vote for Biden, even though I normally would not because I care about abortion or LGBTQ rights." I think if some of the Bernie or Busters knew that 3 seats would come due from 2016 to 2020, they'd have been more likely to take Clinton rather than give those seats away to Trump.


Not only that, but it would also mean justices wouldn't have to "survive" until the next president of their general political alignment gets elected. Look at the nomination of Anthony Kennedy, for instance. Lewis Powell was able to retire in 1987, more than a year before Reagan's term was over, because he was confident that the Democratic Senate would not play politics and would rightfully nominate Reagan's pick.

And the Democratic Senate did. You see, the SC wasn't always as political as it is now. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 despite the Democrats holding the majority in the Senate. That idea is now laughable, as we know.



If Powell was a Supreme Court Justice now, he would have felt compelled to stay on the court until he died in 1996 because the Republicans did not hold the Senate and the Presidency until 2003.

I imagine RGB would have loved to retire in 2016 or 2017. Live the last few years with her family away from the stress of political office. But she couldn't because Trump was the president. She knew she had to live until 2021 in order for her seat not to be filled with another conservative, which would likely mean the end to several things that she fought her entire life for.


I can't imagine the toll that took on her and her life.


If we had term limits, this idea of "surviving" presidencies would be a thing of the past. They would just be chosen, serve whatever the term may be. 10, 15, 20 years. And then, when it came due, they'd either be re-chosen (probably if the presidency is held by the same party as was when they were originally chosen) or be replaced in a predictable and unfrenetic manner, as with nearly every other office in politics.


But that's just my perspective.

Yeah, didn't it start to go downhill with Borking? 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 01:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Please show me where I said that

You said this:

(10-08-2020, 12:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: As Harris said last night Trump has already stacked the federal courts with a bunch of unqualified lifetime appointments.

All Harris said about Trump and the federal courts is that he only picked white people. She never mentioned if they were qualified or not (unless, like I said, I missed something). Ergo, you are saying that they were unqualified because they're white. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 01:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: As I said before:  The same GOP that said "we can't even vote in committee about Obama's nominee" with months left in his term (he was elected to serve his full term too I suppose) are now saying "we absolutely have to put this nominee on the court before we do anything else".  That is the problem.

If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate right now and blocking Trump's appointee I'd say THEY were the problem after they insisted Obama's nominees should get a vote.

The Democrats are asking for consistency and fairness and the Republicans are not ever going to give any of that.

Let's be honest. The only consistency from either party is the Democrats consistently calling Republicans racist. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 01:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Here are the results from a 20 second google search and the first result I skimmed through

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nominating-unqualified-judges-left-and-right-710263

That article was not written by Kamala Harris. You claimed Harris said that Trump nominated unqualified justices. 

[CJD]

(10-08-2020, 01:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, didn't it start to go downhill with Borking? 

Yea, Bork was the one nominated before Kennedy who failed due to concerns about his record on civil rights. I don't know much more beyond that. I think the Democrats were happy to confirm Kennedy because he was not an extremist like Bork.

Little did the Democrats know, they could have just....not held a vote, ever.

Much simpler than demanding a less shit judge be nominated.

[*Nately120*]

(10-08-2020, 01:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You said this:

All Harris said about Trump and the federal courts is that he only picked white people. She never mentioned if they were qualified or not (unless, like I said, I missed something). Ergo, you are saying that they were unqualified because they're white. 

I recall liberals attacking Kavanaugh for a lot of things other than his being white. 

[BigPapaKain]

(10-08-2020, 01:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I recall liberals attacking Kavanaugh for a lot of things other than his being white. 

Something something rape allegations something something.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 01:49 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, Bork was the one nominated before Kennedy who failed due to concerns about his record on civil rights. I don't know much more beyond that. I think the Democrats were happy to confirm Kennedy because he was not an extremist like Bork.

Little did the Democrats know, they could have just....not held a vote, ever.

Much simpler than demanding a less shit judge be nominated.

So we agree the Democratic Senate started the practice. Of course it's been perfected over time. 

Makes sense that packing the courts would also start with the Dems.

[*Nately120*]

(10-08-2020, 01:51 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Something something rape allegations something something.

Then again, the whole race thing could come into play by expecting Republicans to disbelieve that specific white Republican men are rapists while accepting the general idea that immigrants are. 

[CJD]

(10-08-2020, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we agree the Democratic Senate started the practice. Of course it's been perfected over time. 

Makes sense that packing the courts would also start with the Dems.

Started the practice of what, exactly?

Can you tell me what the 1987 Democratic Senate did wrong when they expressed their lack of approval for Bork?

[BigPapaKain]

(10-08-2020, 01:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Then again, the whole race thing could come into play by expecting Republicans to disbelieve that specific white Republican men are rapists while accepting the general idea that immigrants are. 

Congratulations - you just explained the GoP platform on immigration.