Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the rationale was laid out fairly well by Pat in his description of the precedent for the SCOTUS. Whether you agree with the rationale or not is purely subjective, but the logical framework is fairly sound.

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.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said he pointed out the historical reference; even though we didn't do it last time.

Well God help us if we go to 12 Justices.

They would probably go with 13 since there are 13 appellate courts. And he pointed out the likely reasoning why it didn't happen in the modern era. This would be the norm that was created which we were discussing would be violated.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 01:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: And we've spent most of the last four years seeing a POTUS violate the norms...and they celebrated it.

Complaining when he did it and celebrating it when the Dems do it would be the height of hypocrisy.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 01:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Complaining when he did it and celebrating it when the Dems do it would be the height of hypocrisy.

It will be a Silver Lining if Trump loses the White House.

The Left will then be forced to say: "We do shitty things because we're shitty"

As opposed to: "We do shitty things because Trump does shitty things"

[BigPapaKain]

(10-27-2020, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: It is interesting, perhaps only to me, that in this case the right's defense of the Senate blocking Obama's nomination and rushing though Trump's nomination is that...they legally could.

Which is 100% true.

They did not break any laws nor did they do anything the constitution said they could not.

(Side note:  The handling was still hypocritical by the GOP as they were the ones in charge both time and played the system both times, IMHO.)

Yet in the next breath they are saying expanding the court is "wrong" because....reasons?

There is nothing legally or constitutionally stopping the Democrats (or the GOP) from expanding/packing the Supreme Court.

I was 100% against adding Justices to the SCotUS.

Until McConnell pushed through with that shit eating grin of his laughing about how there was nothing anyone could do to stop them/him.

**** that turtle and his cronies in the GoP.

[BmorePat87]

(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.

(10-27-2020, 01:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They would probably go with 13 since there are 13 appellate courts. And he pointed out the likely reasoning why it didn't happen in the modern era. This would be the norm that was created which we were discussing would be violated.

Marbury v Madison is the most brazen power grab in US history, but I think 13 only works if there's an agreement that Biden picks 3 and McConnell and Pelosi agree on a moderate for the 4th.

6-6-1. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 01:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Marbury v Madison is the most brazen power grab in US history, but I think 13 only works if there's an agreement that Biden picks 3 and McConnell and Pelosi agree on a moderate for the 4th.

6-6-1. 

But what if the Dems take the Senate? Also, agreed on the Marbury v. Madison thing. I was teaching some Scouts the Cit in the Nation badge the other night and we were talking branches of government. I went on a little mini rant about the court deciding for itself what its role would be.

I could also see them going with 11 for the numbered districts, once again leaving DC unrepresented in the government. It would be on brand.

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2020, 02:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But what if the Dems take the Senate? Also, agreed on the Marbury v. Madison thing. I was teaching some Scouts the Cit in the Nation badge the other night and we were talking branches of government. I went on a little mini rant about the court deciding for itself what its role would be.

I could also see them going with 11 for the numbered districts, once again leaving DC unrepresented in the government. It would be on brand.

11 is easier to sell and you bank of Robert's desire for moderation to make it a quasi 5-5-1

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 01:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Marbury v Madison is the most brazen power grab in US history, but I think 13 only works if there's an agreement that Biden picks 3 and McConnell and Pelosi agree on a moderate for the 4th.

6-6-1. 

(10-27-2020, 02:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But what if the Dems take the Senate? Also, agreed on the Marbury v. Madison thing. I was teaching some Scouts the Cit in the Nation badge the other night and we were talking branches of government. I went on a little mini rant about the court deciding for itself what its role would be.

I could also see them going with 11 for the numbered districts, once again leaving DC unrepresented in the government. It would be on brand.

I've admitted before my knowledge of US history is much more limited than my knowledge of world history.  So, while I was familiar with the case by name I had to go and read up on it.  Was judicial review not inherent prior to that?  It struck me as odd considering the SCOTUS is one of the three, equally important, branches of government.

It's actually troubling to me that you guys are discussing the packing as if it's a fait accompli (not endorsing it btw, I get that).  I can't stress enough that I think this move will destroy the union.

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2020, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've admitted before my knowledge of US history is much more limited than my knowledge of world history.  So, while I was familiar with the case by name I had to go and read up on it.  Was judicial review not inherent prior to that?  It struck me as odd considering the SCOTUS is one of the three, equally important, branches of government.

It's actually troubling to me that you guys are discussing the packing as if it's a fait accompli (not endorsing it btw, I get that).  I can't stress enough that I think this move will destroy the union.

Many argued that it existed and would be a feature of the new union, though it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It took over a decade for Marshall to outright claim to possess the power. 

Edit: my back up answer to power grab is the federal government's power grab from the late 1800's to mid 1900's, but it's not just one event. We could specify specifically FDR's presidency since it hasn't reverted back since then.

I don't think the addition of 2 would destroy the union. 13 is a tall order, which is why I said an agreement would have to be reached to implement it. The stated outcome in both cases would need to be balance rather than advantage. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 02:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Many argued that it existed and would be a feature of the new union, though it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It took over a decade for Marshall to outright claim to possess the power. 

Edit: my back up answer to power grab is the federal government's power grab from the late 1800's to mid 1900's, but it's not just one event. We could specify specifically FDR's presidency since it hasn't reverted back since then.

I don't think the addition of 2 would destroy the union. 13 is a tall order, which is why I said an agreement would have to be reached to implement it. The stated outcome in both cases would need to be balance rather than advantage. 

It's not the number increased, it's the reason for the increase.  As much as I disagree with McConnel's tactics in 2016 that has nothing on packing the SCOTUS.  It's a naked power grab and as close to tyranny as we've gotten in a non-war period.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 02:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Many argued that it existed and would be a feature of the new union, though it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It took over a decade for Marshall to outright claim to possess the power. 

Edit: my back up answer to power grab is the federal government's power grab from the late 1800's to mid 1900's, but it's not just one event. We could specify specifically FDR's presidency since it hasn't reverted back since then.

I don't think the addition of 2 would destroy the union. 13 is a tall order, which is why I said an agreement would have to be reached to implement it. The stated outcome in both cases would need to be balance rather than advantage. 

Yeah, you have to read some of the contemporary errata to understand the intention behind the courts because they left it out from being explicitly stated in the Constitution. It's actually one reason why I scoff at the idea of originalist or textualist justices, because by their rationale they shouldn't even be offering an opinion.

Also, the progressive era was definitely one big power grab leading up to FDR. It really is amazing to think how much changed in our government during that time, and most people really have no idea. Personally, as a bureaucrat, I tend to view it overall as a positive. While I have many problems with some of the things they did and stood for, Wilson and the Roosevelts really shaped things and my political views carry some similarities in many ways.

(10-27-2020, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not the number increased, it's the reason for the increase.  As much as I disagree with McConnel's tactics in 2016 that has nothing on packing the SCOTUS.  It's a naked power grab and as close to tyranny as we've gotten in a non-war period.

This is why the commission is being discussed. Not even joking. The commission is a way to justify it without it being an overt power grab. They make a recommendation and it seems far more reasonable. It will be used to sway the hand-wringing moderates to their side. The right will continue to call it a power grab, sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the same ones with the Lincoln Project right now would go along with it.

[masterpanthera_t]

(10-27-2020, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not the number increased, it's the reason for the increase.  As much as I disagree with McConnel's tactics in 2016 that has nothing on packing the SCOTUS.  It's a naked power grab and as close to tyranny as we've gotten in a non-war period.

I remain unconvinced that this would be tyranny. Admittedly, I have not read all the posts on this thread, and therefore, may have missed your arguments for why this would be a tyrannical move. But as of now, I only see this as your opinion. Considering McConnell's tactics, and the simple justification of "well, I have the power to do it, and it's not illegal, so I will", I don't see in theory why the same argument doesn't suit the packing of the courts, especially given the precedent based justifications that Bmore laid out. EDIT : Also based on Bels' last paragraph in the post above this: end of EDIT. Sort of like how McConnell used some speech from a few years prior as his justification for not holding a hearing on another appointee.

I'm not necessarily saying that I can't see it as tyranny, but perhaps I need to see some arguments put forth for why that is. I'm sort of on two minds as far as McConnell's actions are concerned. I can see that as sort of tyranny as well, but don't necessarily do so. Especially if the only argument for "not tyranny" is "well, it's legal, and I have the power".

Lastly, I'm hoping to hear from your (or any other differing) perspective, on this issue. But by no means do I feel entitled to your time or response. Perhaps I may learn or get more profound in considering the issues due to it. I do see a potential for escalation, an arms race of packing if you will, but other than that, fail to see a specifically tyrannical view, only one of this will lead to eventual troubles because this can become an endless game and not a meaningful exercise. But based on current functioning of Congress, my cynical view is that we're essentially already at a the point of meaningless games, posturing and grandstanding without having a truly functioning Congress which actually does a whole lot for the people, even in comparison to say 30 years ago.

[GMDino]

(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.

(10-13-2020, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's also the little detail as to the precedent set by Reid that McConnel was following.  That's the thing about being a partisan, you set yourself up for contradiction and hypocrisy.  

As an aside, I'm pleased to see that no rational people are in favor of stacking the court.  Although I do find the Dems using the term "packing" to describe filling actual vacancies to be troubling.  It's a transparent attempt to lessen the impact of the word in case they choose to exercise that option.  It's a rather ominous development.

(10-13-2020, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.  Since you felt a salient point was being ignored I assumed you'd want the whole story out there so people can be informed.


 
It's equally ominous that Reid apparently thought the same thing.  If I recall correctly McConnell even warned Reid against the tactic, stating it would backfire on them in the future.



I always find this type of argument interesting because it presupposes that McConnel, or others against which it has been used, doesn't think that what is best for the country is what he is advancing.  While you certainly disagree do you not think that there's a possibility, even a likelihood, that McConnel thinks that those positions being filed with GOP appointments is better for the countries future than if they are filled by Dem appointments?


One way or another, sure.  It is interesting that we can't seem to get a straight answer out of any Dem on the issue of packing the SCOTUS, which is disconcerting.  It would be very easy to say it's a bad idea (which it is) and then move on.  The far left types who have pipe dreams about that occurring are going to turn up to vote anyways, it's not going to cost you on election day and, in fact, may lure some centrists over to your side.

(10-13-2020, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It depends on the context.  In this instance I believe you're referring to my position that if you opposed not holding hearings and voting on Garland but demand them now then your position is hypocritical.  Of course, the inverse is true as well. There is not doubt that McConnell is a hypocrite in this regard.  We're not talking about legal precedent here either, which is intended to be binding and be the bedrock for future decisions.



I think you're vastly oversimplifying this and it appears for the exact same reason you decry from others.  Filling a vacant position, regardless of how or why it is vacant, is not packing.  They didn't have to change any rule to accomplish this.  It is not changing the structure of the Federal Courts. If the GOP added twenty seats to the 9th circuit court then that would absolutely be packing.  That is not what happened.  You can view it as underhanded and a manipulation of the system, and I'd largely agree with you, but it is absolutely not packing.

I reiterate and completely stand by the assertion that the term is only being used now as a left wing talking point to lesson the impact of the term if they choose the exercise that option in the SCOTUS (which was Ginsberg vehemently opposed to btw).  I'm quite serious when I say god help us all if they have the means and choose to do so.

(10-13-2020, 07:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think it's hair splitting at all.  There is an enormous difference between filling vacancies that already exist and creating vacancies that you then get to fill.  Especially when we're talking about the SCOTUS with only nine seats to be had.  In fact, the idea of packing the SCOTUS was so toxic that it caused virtually everyone to turn on FDR when he proposed it.  

A person who was killed in self defense and a murder victim are both dead, but there's an enormous, and important, difference in how they got that way.

(10-13-2020, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get the point, but I don't think what would happen in between would be pretty.  At all.

(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.  


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.

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


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.

(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.



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


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.

(10-14-2020, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was going to comment on your earlier post that both Bel and I are of the same mind on this topic, but further posts, as noted above, made this unnecessary.  I'm not nearly as far as Bel on the "tear it down and start fresh" path (which I realize he is not committed to as stated), but we both firmly believe this could, and IMO likely would, be the impetus for the shooting to start.

(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.

(10-27-2020, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've admitted before my knowledge of US history is much more limited than my knowledge of world history.  So, while I was familiar with the case by name I had to go and read up on it.  Was judicial review not inherent prior to that?  It struck me as odd considering the SCOTUS is one of the three, equally important, branches of government.

It's actually troubling to me that you guys are discussing the packing as if it's a fait accompli (not endorsing it btw, I get that).  I can't stress enough that I think this move will destroy the union.

(10-27-2020, 03:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not the number increased, it's the reason for the increase.  As much as I disagree with McConnel's tactics in 2016 that has nothing on packing the SCOTUS.  It's a naked power grab and as close to tyranny as we've gotten in a non-war period.

Wars, slavery, scandal, the red scare, 9/11, Bush v Gore, amendments to the constitution, amendments to those amendments, even previous changing of the number of judges on the SC...all those things over all those years and adding two people to the SC *NOW* will "cause the shooting to start"?  If you truly believe that (and I think you do) you have no faith in our ability as a country.  And you have successfully ingested so much Trump flavorade that you truly believe in the division he has nurtured in this country.

I would hope you wouldn't join in "when the shooting starts" to defend something that would be perfectly legal and has happened in the past.

I'm not even for it but I don't think anyone else in this thread has used such hyperbole to fear monger about it.  

Believe it or not I expect a nuanced responses from you about it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 03:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why the commission is being discussed. Not even joking. The commission is a way to justify it without it being an overt power grab. They make a recommendation and it seems far more reasonable. It will be used to sway the hand-wringing moderates to their side. The right will continue to call it a power grab, sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the same ones with the Lincoln Project right now would go along with it.

Honestly, if this happens as described I will officially lose my faith in this nation for the first time in my life.

(10-27-2020, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I remain unconvinced that this would be tyranny. Admittedly, I have not read all the posts on this thread, and therefore, may have missed your arguments for why this would be a tyrannical move. But as of now, I only see this as your opinion. Considering McConnell's tactics, and the simple justification of "well, I have the power to do it, and it's not illegal, so I will", I don't see in theory why the same argument doesn't suit the packing of the courts, especially given the precedent based justifications that Bmore laid out. EDIT : Also based on Bels' last paragraph in the post above this: end of EDIT. Sort of like how McConnell used some speech from a few years prior as his justification for not holding a hearing on another appointee.

I'm not necessarily saying that I can't see it as tyranny, but perhaps I need to see some arguments put forth for why that is. I'm sort of on two minds as far as McConnell's actions are concerned. I can see that as sort of tyranny as well, but don't necessarily do so. Especially if the only argument for "not tyranny" is "well, it's legal, and I have the power".

Lastly, I'm hoping to hear from your (or any other differing) perspective, on this issue. But by no means do I feel entitled to your time or response. Perhaps I may learn or get more profound in considering the issues due to it. I do see a potential for escalation, an arms race of packing if you will, but other than that, fail to see a specifically tyrannical view, only one of this will lead to eventual troubles because this can become an endless game and not a meaningful exercise. But based on current functioning of Congress, my cynical view is that we're essentially already at a the point of meaningless games, posturing and grandstanding without having a truly functioning Congress which actually does a whole lot for the people, even in comparison to say 30 years ago.

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.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 04:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wars, slavery, scandal, the red scare, 9/11, Bush v Gore, amendments to the constitution, amendments to those amendments, even previous changing of the number of judges on the SC...all those things over all those years and adding two people to the SC *NOW* will "cause the shooting to start"?

Our country is in a much more fragile state now than it was during any of the events you just mentioned.  You also seem to be confusing, perhaps deliberately, that my belief that the shooting will start is the same as a desire for that to happen.  This could not be further from the truth.

 

Quote: If you truly believe that (and I think you do) you have no faith in our ability as a country.  And you have successfully ingested so much Trump flavorade that you truly believe in the division he has nurtured in this country.

First of all, how dare you make such a statement.  Only on the internet would someone have the balls to cast such an aspersion as this.  I also find it rich that you, who have bemoaned Trump's "erosion of our democracy" are now showing so much faith in institutions that you've been complaining about being fragile for the past four years.

Quote:I would hope you wouldn't join in "when the shooting starts" to defend something that would be perfectly legal and has happened in the past.

Please, you as much as inferred it already.  Don't try and put a thin veneer over your odious statement about me.

Quote:I'm not even for it but I don't think anyone else in this thread has used such hyperbole to fear monger about it.  

Believe it or not I expect a nuanced responses from you about it.

It's not fear mongering if you believe it's true.  Odd that Bel thinks the exact same way as I do on this subject, yet you didn't spend the time to quote his posts.  Be honest, this post is an attack on me because you thought you could score internet points with it.  I find your assertions nauseating and your denials about this being an attack on my person utterly unbelievable.  I'd honestly appreciate it if you never responded to me again because I have no desire to converse with you further on any subject whatsoever.

[GMDino]

(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.


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.

Court packing/expanding would be perfectly legal.  Just like any legislation it would need to be passed, signed and potentially challenged in court.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Our country is in a much more fragile state now than it was during any of the events you just mentioned.  You also seem to be confusing, perhaps deliberately, that my belief that the shooting will start is the same as a desire for that to happen.  This could not be further from the truth.

I don't think you WANT it to start but I do think you truly believe THIS is what will make it start.
 

(10-27-2020, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, how dare you make such a statement.  Only on the internet would someone have the balls to cast such an aspersion as this.  I also find it rich that you, who have bemoaned Trump's "erosion of our democracy" are now showing so much faith in institutions that you've been complaining about being fragile for the past four years.

I'm not playing the who is a tough guy route sir...I'm saying if someone believe this country is so divided they can't handle this they have bought completely into the "country is the most divided ever" talk and Trump has nurtured that.

(10-27-2020, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please, you as much as inferred it already.  Don't try and put a thin veneer over your odious statement about me.

I inferred nothing. I would hope you would not be a shooter over two SC seats.

(10-27-2020, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not fear mongering if you believe it's true.  Odd that Bel thinks the exact same way as I do on this subject, yet you didn't spend the time to quote his posts.  Be honest, this post is an attack on me because you thought you could score internet points with it.  I find your assertions nauseating and your denials about this being an attack on my person utterly unbelievable.  I'd honestly appreciate it if you never responded to me again because I have no desire to converse with you further on any subject whatsoever.

It is fear mongering. Matt knows it would be legal and never said it would be the end of the country. I don't get the ego rush for "internet points"...I read you say, multiple times that this would the absolute worst thing that end our country and be nothing short of tyranny. I wouldn't expect that kind of hyperbole from you. But I also didn't think it would hurt your feelings either. We've had significant back and forth over the years and I never take it personally. If this was a bridge too far in quoting what you said and thinking you would do better than so be it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think you WANT it to start but I do think you truly believe THIS is what will make it start.
 


I'm not playing the who is a tough guy route sir...I'm saying if someone believe this country is so divided they can't handle this they have bought completely into the "country is the most divided ever" talk and Trump has nurtured that.


I inferred nothing.  I would hope you would not be a shooter over two SC seats.



It is fear mongering.  Matt knows it would be legal and never said it would be the end of the country.  I don't get the ego rush for "internet points"...I read you say, multiple times that this would the absolute worst thing that end our country and be nothing short of tyranny.  I wouldn't expect that kind of hyperbole from you.  But I also didn't think it would hurt your feelings either.  We've had significant back and forth over the years and I never take it personally.  If this was a bridge too far in quoting what you said and thinking you would do better than so be it.

Matt flat out stated he agrees with me that packing the court could very well lead to a Civil War.  Quite simply, you crossed the line big time with your post and no form of attempting to weasel out of it will be accepted.  You didn't hurt my feelings, please don't pretend you have any ability to affect me whatsoever, but I will not converse with a person as disingenuous as your post made you out to be.  So either apologize for your groundless accusations or that's the end of it.

[masterpanthera_t]

(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.

I see what you mean. While I knew that your view was that his move was underhanded, I got more context here. I think, if I were to accurately restate your view here, you look at McConnell's inaction sort of along the lines of a "filibuster". A move designed to prevent an action, but mainly, and this is the key - the move is already within the framework. I can see this view, and probably this is close to my view here.

Quote: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 can certainly see this point of view, and yes, it would be an imposition of a will on others outside the framework. And I'm not unsympathetic to this viewpoint. At some level, though, even McConnell's actions (or inaction) goes against the "spirit" of what was the intended functioning of the framework, IMO (perhaps I'm not informed enough here). While technically his actions are more on the path of finding a loophole (or something along those lines) within the framework, and in contrast, the court packing would be a rebuild of the framework (naturally, timed in a way that further rebuilds may not be that easy, although not impossible to pull off), ultimately I find them both guilty of breaking the spirit of the framework. While I'm almost in concurrence with you on why rebuilding the framework would be tyrannical, something about the process undertaken by McConnell really rankles my sense of fairness, and allowing that to stand by on a "technicality" (loop hole finding vs. rebuilding the framework) without any action also strikes me as essentially allowing a power grab without any "censure" if you will. Because both actions, IMO, break the spirit of the framework, just that the latter is more overly so.
And as for your last point about the Dem party, well, I will say that I hope both parties go away into the ash heap of history to be replaced with two or more parties and a better more functioning system of Democracy. But now I'm digressing away from the topic.