Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 01:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 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?

Refused to confirm based solely on Political beliefs instead of qualifications. 

I thought you knew this. 

[Mickeypoo]

(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.

Great points!

[CJD]

(10-08-2020, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Refused to confirm based solely on Political beliefs instead of qualifications. 

I thought you knew this. 

Right. Got it.

Because the Republicans politicized civil rights XD.

Thanks for making that clear, Bfine.

We always heard about how the "party switch" isn't real, but you just made it explicit that Republicans in 1987 believed in repressing civil rights.

Thanks for the lay up.

[Mickeypoo]

(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'm pretty sure she said "stacked" and "unqualified" as well as "white" if I am remembering correctly.

[BrownAssClown]

Short answer no....but if it does happen you can blame Mitch McConnell, he's the one that says things like we have the power and the numbers to get it done. IMO Obama should of had his pick, Trump should of had 1 pick so far, and whomever wins in November gets to fill the current vacancy. McConnell is not playing by the rules he set forth in 2016, Why?...He doesn't have to, he has the numbers and the power, so don't go blaming the Democrats if they get the power
and the numbers to pack the court. Again, should it happen no, but I won't blame them if they do it and you have folks like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham to thank for it.

[CJD]

(10-08-2020, 02:09 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: Short answer no....but if it does happen you can blame Mitch McConnell, he's the one that says things like we have the power and the numbers to get it done. IMO Obama should of had his pick, Trump should of had 1 pick so far, and whomever wins in November gets to fill the current vacancy. McConnell is not playing by the rules he set forth in 2016, Why?...He doesn't have to, he has the numbers and the power, so don't go blaming the Democrats if they get the power
and the numbers to pack the court. Again, should it happen no, but I won't blame them if they do it and you have folks like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham to thank for it.

There's a long legacy of one-upmanship in the Senate in terms of who can grab more power. You saw it with the Nuclear Option in 2013. And even that was only done because McConnell was intentionally preventing appointees from being confirmed. And, before that, in 2003, Democrats were doing the same thing, which made Republicans consider the nuclear option before getting a larger majority in 2004. I'm sure if you go back further, you'll see even more back and forth in terms of trying to snuff the other side out.

 I think it was kind of required to remove the 60 seat vote rule because the days of one party having 60 seats in the Senate may be gone forever. At least until something dramatically changes about the way politics are discussed and executed in this country. 

I don't know how to repair our political system. The idea of Republicans and Democrats working together ever again seems...unlikely. Maybe if we have a shift in one direction or another and members of the same party now begin migrating between parties (like, for example, if the extremist Republicans of today begin to fade away with time and the conservatives in the Democratic party like Biden become the new "Republican party" and the AOCs and Bernies become the new "Democratic Party"), but the idea of that ever happening is just so low, I can't even fathom it occurring from where we are today.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-08-2020, 01:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Let's be honest. The only consistency from either party is the Democrats consistently calling Republicans racist. 

Funny stuff coming from the guy who called me racist in this very thread because he didn’t know any better.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-08-2020, 01:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That article was not written by Kamala Harris. You claimed Harris said that Trump nominated unqualified justices. 

I’m done playing google for you. Gotta work. Educate yourself

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-08-2020, 12:45 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: He didn't "stack" the courts.  "Stacking" the court is expanding the number of seats and then filling them with people leaning the way you want.  

He filled open seats, over 100 left open by the Obama admin that they could have filled.

Other than Harris saying so, do you have proof they are unqualified or is it because anything Trump does is bad to you?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/

Obama was obstructed by McConnell from filling those seats.

https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

They were declared "not qualified" by the American Bar Association.

[GMDino]

(10-08-2020, 02:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Right. Got it.

Because the Republicans politicized civil rights XD.

Thanks for making that clear, Bfine.

We always heard about how the "party switch" isn't real, but you just made it explicit that Republicans in 1987 believed in repressing civil rights.

Thanks for the lay up.

I know its Wikipedia but it had all the numbers in one place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#Full_Senate

Two Democrats voted in favor.  Six Republicans voted against.



And it was more than civil rights:

(Bold mine)

Quote:On July 31, 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Lewis Powell, who had earlier announced his retirement. At the time of his nomination, Bork was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a position to which he was appointed by President Reagan in 1982.


Bork's nomination precipitated a contentious Senate debate. Opposition to his nomination centered on his stated desire to roll back the civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts and his role in the October 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42–58. He is the most recent Supreme Court nominee to be officially rejected by the Senate.[note 1]


Reagan subsequently nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was viewed as a mainstream moderate. He was unanimously confirmed in February 1988.[1]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#cite_note-CDNCS-2][/url]

[samhain]

(10-08-2020, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the worst ideas to come out of the Dem camp in a year chocked full of terrible ideas.  I wish I was being hyperbolic when I say that stacking the court would likely mean the end of the United States as it currently exists.  It's such a naked power grab I think it would be the straw that broke the Cambell's soup can that got throw at police.

I'm sure you're clutching you're pearls when it comes to a sitting president's campaign literally saying that they are working with state legislators to appoint their own pro-Trump electors to circumvent the will of the voters, right?  Gotta be another "end of the United States as it currently exists" kind of thing, right?  

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 02:03 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I'm pretty sure she said "stacked" and "unqualified" as well as "white" if I am remembering correctly.

I granted the possibility that I may have missed her saying that but I honestly don't recall her saying anything other than that they were whtie.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 02:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Funny stuff coming from the guy who called me racist in this very thread because he didn’t know any better.

I didn't call you racist. I said the remark was racist.

(10-08-2020, 02:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m done playing google for you. Gotta work. Educate yourself

I did. I found no evidence that Harris claimed during the VP debate that Trump's judicial nominees were unqualified. Only that they weren't black. So maybe don't make up shit and you won't get called out for it. 

[CJD]

(10-08-2020, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know its Wikipedia but it had all the numbers in one place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#Full_Senate

Two Democrats voted in favor.  Six Republicans voted against.



And it was more than civil rights:

(Bold mine)

I honestly didn't even check the vote count haha. But that's interesting. Could you imagine 6 Republicans going against Trump this time?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2020, 03:01 PM)samhain Wrote: I'm sure you're clutching you're pearls when it comes to a sitting president's campaign literally saying that they are working with state legislators to appoint their own pro-Trump electors to circumvent the will of the voters, right?  Gotta be another "end of the United States as it currently exists" kind of thing, right?  

It certainly gave me the vapors.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 02:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Right. Got it.

Because the Republicans politicized civil rights XD.

Thanks for making that clear, Bfine.

We always heard about how the "party switch" isn't real, but you just made it explicit that Republicans in 1987 believed in repressing civil rights.

Thanks for the lay up.

That's cool and all, but it does absolutely nothing to dispute the point. So do we agree that a Dem controlled Senate was the first to not confirm a SCOTUS candidate based on political belief instead of qualification or do we not?

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know its Wikipedia but it had all the numbers in one place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#Full_Senate

Two Democrats voted in favor.  Six Republicans voted against.



And it was more than civil rights:

(Bold mine)
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination#cite_note-CDNCS-2][/url]

Thanks for supporting my stance.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-08-2020, 03:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I didn't call you racist. I said the remark was racist.


I did. I found no evidence that Harris claimed during the VP debate that Trump's judicial nominees were unqualified. Only that they weren't black. So maybe don't make up shit and you won't get called out for it. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/08/vice-presidential-debate-full-transcript-mike-pence-and-kamala-harris/5920773002/

“Yeah, I’m about to. So, the Trump-Pence administration has been – because I sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Susan, as you mentioned. And I've witnessed the appointments, for lifetime appointments to the federal courts, district courts, Courts of Appeal -- people who are purely ideological people who have been reviewed by legal professional organizations and found to be not competent, are substandard. And do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is Black? This is what they've been doing. You want to talk about packing a court? Let's have that discussion.“

My god man. If you are going to run with a right wing talking point then double down on it.... never mind. No wonder we have a conman for prez.

Not competent and substandard.

There is not a drop of racism involved in wanting a representative government with some diversity and an administration that failed at it.

[samhain]

I think stacking the court is a shit idea and doubt it will happen. I think it's dumb for Dem legislators to even threaten it.

SCOTUS justices are a crapshoot anyway. They are bound by precedent. They can make changes, but not purely based on personal ideology. Roberts seems to make attempts to keep the Court as neutral as possible, and even Kavanaugh, viewed largely as a down-the-line ideologue of the right has exercised discretion in his opinions as a justice.

The best change is unforced and organic outside of extreme circumstances like slavery or Jim Crow.

There's an argument for power begetting power, as the senior senator form my state has demonstrated, but some things should be sacred.

In time, places like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina will become swing/light blue states. The GOP will find it nearly impossible to win a general election, and the Senate will be largely lost to them. At that point, Dems can replace justices as needed.

[Millhouse]

I think this is a bad move by Biden right now to not give an answer other than 'Wait til I am elected' kind of answer. I have to think most voters are against stacking the court, probably like 2/3rds or so if I had to guess based on some polls done on this. So risking voters to swing away from him just doesnt make sense for something like this. Just simpy say "No, we wont stack the court, end of story'.