Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[hollodero]

(10-08-2020, 11:21 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, because like everything else it'll just become an arms race where we are constantly doing it with each new administration.

I think there's a difference between being the better person and being a punchingbag. Just taking the hit and letting it go for fear of escalation might not be a wise approach. Usually, one ends up getting hit again.

Also, Dems would not need to create an inbalance. They could correct an existing inbalance, that was not created fair and square.

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 08:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have myself convinced a reboot is coming in 2024.  I'm a moron.

Could be sooner.

The gop maintains control of the majority by the EC and gerrymandering. Now they've added encouraging militants to "protect themselves" by shooting people in the back and kidnapping members of the opposing party 

January could get fugly if the trend continues.

[*Nately120*]

(10-13-2020, 10:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Could be sooner.

The gop maintains control of the majority by the EC and gerrymandering. Now they've added encouraging militants to "protect themselves" by shooting people in the back and kidnapping members of the opposing party 

January could get fugly if the trend continues.

Well, hopefully if Trump loses in 2020 and continues to want to lead his followers he will be encouraged to do so in another country.  I'm not even sure I'm joking when I say it could be time for Jonestown 2.0.

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 10:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, hopefully if Trump loses in 2020 and continues to want to lead his followers he will be encouraged to do so in another country.  I'm not even sure I'm joking when I say it could be time for Jonestown 2.0.

Trump doesn't care enough about them to want them dead. As long as they attend his fake colleges, watch his reality TV and pay to stay at his resorts, it's all good. 

It is weird to think, though, what would happen if there were an insurrection with Trump leading the charge. Violent militants with an incompetent leader who fires or belittles the people he places in charge? I'm thinking it lasts until militia members run out of sick leave.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 10:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not even sure I'm joking when I say it could be time for Jonestown 2.0.

(10-13-2020, 10:46 PM)Benton Wrote: Trump doesn't care enough about them to want them dead. 

So sad

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-13-2020, 08:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Didn't you state just two posts previously that packing the courts involved changing the rules?  Changing the rules would involve enacting legislation, right?  Enacting legislation is the legislative branch's job.  Obstruction isn't. If they would just fill the positions as they become available instead of obstructing or changing the rules we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Sure.  Changing the rules could involve only allowing white men to vote, only allowing people over 35 to vote, only allowing red states to have on Senator each, etc.  All of these are rule changes that could be kick started by legislation (yes, I realize many would require an amendment).  None of them are desirable.  

(10-13-2020, 09:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think there's a difference between being the better person and being a punchingbag. Just taking the hit and letting it go for fear of escalation might not be a wise approach. Usually, one ends up getting hit again.

Also, Dems would not need to create an inbalance. They could correct an existing inbalance, that was not created fair and square.

Under the rules nothing was done wrong.  I'd stress that's by the letter of the rule, not the spirit and yes I thought it was shady.  However, any change to the number of SCOTUS justices would be a far cry beyond that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-13-2020, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  Changing the rules could involve only allowing white men to vote, only allowing people over 35 to vote, only allowing red states to have on Senator each, etc.  All of these are rule changes that could be kick started by legislation (yes, I realize many would require an amendment).  None of them are desirable.  

So you know how changing the rules applies to packing the SCOTUS so I don’t even know why you asked.

Quote:Under the rules nothing was done wrong.  I'd stress that's by the letter of the rule, not the spirit and yes I thought it was shady.  However, any change to the number of SCOTUS justices would be a far cry beyond that.

Is changing the rules wrong? Especially when your job involves making and changing the rules? No.

Is changing the rules more shady than the shady stuff you admit the Republicans did? No. Not if they follow the rules that allow them to change the rules.

I don’t see this “far cry” difference.

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So sad

Agreed.

[*Nately120*]

(10-13-2020, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So sad

That doesn't mean they have to go the murder suicide route.  Geez, quit with the tsk tsk.

You can bet Trump is going to lead a segment of this population via Twitter for the rest of his life regardless of who the president is.

When i mention Jonestown I'm talking about a cult figure declaring America to have lost it's way and that they can start their own great society elsewhere while the usa destroys itself. There is more to the Jonestown phenomenon than just the poisoned flavorade.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 12:09 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So you know how changing the rules applies to packing the SCOTUS so I don’t even know why you asked.

 

Because, respectfully, your post wasn't worded in a way that easily drew one to that conclusion.  Hence my request for clarification.

Quote:Is changing the rules wrong? Especially when your job involves making and changing the rules? No.

It isn't intrinsically wrong, no.  But, as I stated above, there are numerous changes that would be.  IMO stacking the SCOTUS would absolutely be one of them.

Quote:Is changing the rules more shady than the shady stuff you admit the Republicans did?  No. Not if they follow the rules that allow them to change the rules.  

Again, it can be.  Manipulating the rules or finding loopholes is literally part of the job description for lawyers and politicians.

Quote:I don’t see this “far cry” difference.

I honestly think it's because you have no desire to.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 09:52 AM)Nately120 Wrote: That doesn't mean they have to go the murder suicide route.  Geez, quit with the tsk tsk.

You can bet Trump is going to lead a segment of this population via Twitter for the rest of his life regardless of who the president is.

When i mention Jonestown I'm talking about a cult figure declaring America to have lost it's way and that they can start their own great society elsewhere while the usa destroys itself.  There is more to the Jonestown phenomenon than just the poisoned flavorade.

Did you mean that for Benton?

[hollodero]

(10-13-2020, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Under the rules nothing was done wrong.

The "nuclear option" was a rule change though. It's somewhat a given that you can stick to the rules if one of those rules is that you can change the rules... maybe I'm seeing that wrong though.

(10-13-2020, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd stress that's by the letter of the rule, not the spirit and yes I thought it was shady.  However, any change to the number of SCOTUS justices would be a far cry beyond that.

I don't see it that way, but that's a matter of opinion. I'd call it a far cry if this was done to create an inbalanced court. In this case, it would create a more balanced court. That still would tilt republican 6-5, actually.
If I were a Dem strategist, I'd not be fine with the alternative of doing nothing. The Democratic party appears weak to many, just letting this go would imho somehwat underline that perception. At some point fighting back seems appropriate to me. Admittedly, I do not think it's a big deal to have 11 judges instead of 9, both are arbitrary numbers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 11:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: The "nuclear option" was a rule change though. It's somewhat a given that you can stick to the rules if one of those rules is that you can change the rules... maybe I'm seeing that wrong though.

Yes, but it was really just finishing what Harry Reid started.

Quote:I don't see it that way, but that's a matter of opinion. I'd call it a far cry if this was done to create an inbalanced court. In this case, it would create a more balanced court. That still would tilt republican 6-5, actually.
If I were a Dem strategist, I'd not be fine with the alternative of doing nothing. The Democratic party appears weak to many, just letting this go would imho somehwat underline that perception. At some point fighting back seems appropriate to me. Admittedly, I do not think it's a big deal to have 11 judges instead of 9, both are arbitrary numbers.

I don't think you are grasping how controversial this move would be.  What's to stop the GOP from doing the exact same thing the next time they're in power?  What McConnel did was underhanded, but packing the SCOTUS is a naked power grab.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that doing so could be the impetus for a second civil war.

[*Nately120*]

(10-14-2020, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you mean that for Benton?

I was under the impression you were saying I am sad for "wishing" jonestown on Trump and his supporters.  

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, but it was really just finishing what Harry Reid started.

Maybe so. Still a rule change.

(10-14-2020, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you are grasping how controversial this move would be.  What's to stop the GOP from doing the exact same thing the next time they're in power?

What is stopping them now?
I have a feeling the next time they're in power, they would do something like that no matter what if they feel the necessity. If any, they might hesitate if they know there'd be payback. If they learn there will not be any payback, yeah well, that's rather an incentive to just do it again really.

(10-14-2020, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What McConnel did was underhanded, but packing the SCOTUS is a naked power grab.  I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that doing so could be the impetus for a second civil war.

I don't think it's a power grab when the resulting SC would stil be 6-5 republican.
And I also don't believe this would lead to a civil war. Not if Trump losing didn't already lead to one, which honestly I think is a more likely reason for certain citizens to grab their guns and be all civilwary.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 11:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. Still a rule change.

As bfine correctly pointed out a SCOTUS justice is a federal judge, so it was a fine distinction to begin with.  But yes.

Quote:What is stopping them now?
I have a feeling the next time they're in power, they would do something like that no matter what if they feel the necessity. If any, they might hesitate if they know there'd be payback. If they learn there will not be any payback, yeah well, that's rather an incentive to just do it again really.

What's stopping them now, or in 2016 rather, is that it's a huge move to make.  As I said the idea of it is wildly unpopular unless you are a far left type.  Ginsberg herself stated it was an absolutely horrible idea and would irreversibly destroy the SCOTUS as an institution

Quote:I don't think it's a power grab when the resulting SC would stil be 6-5 republican.
And I also don't believe this would lead to a civil war. Not if Trump losing didn't already lead to one, which honestly I think is a more likely reason for certain citizens to grab their guns and be all civilwary.

With respect, you're not American nor do you reside in the US, so I think you're grossly underestimating the likely impact of this.  This is a huge deal.  Look at the poll results here, only one person (the last time I checked) actually voted in favor of this and their posts don't inspire confidence in their being a rational non-partisan actor.  The no votes cross a wide political spectrum.  The perception of this move would be a borderline coup.  Coupled with a potential close loss for Trump, which would be necessary for this to even occur, and I don't see the union surviving this move in its current form.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As bfine correctly pointed out a SCOTUS justice is a federal judge, so it was a fine distinction to begin with.  But yes.

I agree with you, but not on this part. All other federal judges exist because Congress establishes their courts. The SCOTUS, however, is established by the Constitution, making the justices constitutional officers. The nuclear option for SCOTUS was not on the level with using it for lower court judges or executive appointments.

[*bfine32*]

McConnell to Reid and the Dems in reference to the nuclear option on Federal Judge nominations:

Quote:“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."

So yeah, the reason is the Dems.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: McConnell to Reid and the Dems in reference to the nuclear option on Federal Judge nominations:


So yeah, the reason is the Dems.

That may be the justification they use, but it's not the reason. The reason is to improve their power in the courts. Saying the "reason" is what Reid and the Democrats did before is just abdicating any personal responsibility on the part of the Republicans. In the game of tit-for-tat, everyone involved is guilty.

[hollodero]

(10-14-2020, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What's stopping them now, or in 2016 rather, is that it's a huge move to make.  As I said the idea of it is wildly unpopular unless you are a far left type.  Ginsberg herself stated it was an absolutely horrible idea and would irreversibly destroy the SCOTUS as an institution

32% are in favor of expanding the court according to some ABC poll I found, so yes it is unpopular with around 2/3 of people. But so is ramming the current nomination through, which didn't stop republicans from doing it. Things being unpopular seems to never stop them really.

(10-14-2020, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With respect, you're not American nor do you reside in the US, so I think you're grossly underestimating the likely impact of this.  This is a huge deal.  Look at the poll results here, only one person (the last time I checked) actually voted in favor of this and their posts don't inspire confidence in their being a rational non-partisan actor. The no votes cross a wide political spectrum.  The perception of this move would be a borderline coup. 

I get that a non-partisan US resident would probably not be in favor of this. I concede it's unpopular, I also concede that I might very well underestimate the impact. (Because, sure, I indeed live far away and have little real idea.) As of now though, there's only one person (you) who expressed a belief that the union might not survive that and the result might be a civil war. And so that to me might just be overestimating the impact. I'd figure many, even the angry ones, would get that this would still be a 6-5 republican court, and that the constitution was not broken, which imho is not akin to a coup.
Bels, for example, is quite the rational actor, and him being somewhat torn on that issue goes a long way for me to think it might not be just that catastrophic.

I also think it is a virtual debate and this will not really happen anyway. For Democrats, the way I got to know them, are quite wary not to do anything unpopular. Which at times I consider a mistake. Maybe not in this case, as you crorectly pointed out I am not in a position to know.