+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? (/Thread-Are-you-in-favor-of-stacking-the-Supreme-Court)
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - Mickeypoo - 10-09-2020
(10-09-2020, 08:46 PM)Millhouse Wrote: 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'.
Unless they are 100% sure they are going to do it.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - Forever Spinning Vinyl - 10-12-2020
(10-08-2020, 08:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?
But they at least held a vote on it and even some Republicans said No. What was the reason for not voting on Garland in 2016? They had the votes to deny the nomination. Why didn't they go through with it?
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - bfine32 - 10-13-2020
(10-12-2020, 11:54 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: But they at least held a vote on it and even some Republicans said No. What was the reason for not voting on Garland in 2016? They had the votes to deny the nomination. Why didn't they go through with it?
They used the excuse of the upcoming election.
FWIW, I've always said Garland should have gotten a vote, just as I think Coney should. But I was just pointing out that the Dems are the one that made the bed that they now fight to lie in.
Now ask yourself why will Coney only need a simple majority to get nominated.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - Forever Spinning Vinyl - 10-13-2020
(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.
This why I voted yes. Republicans are a shrinking demographic and due to their gerrymandering, they are over represented. This is the last dying gasp of the Republican party. There shouldn't be a Republican heavy court making decisions favoring a party that will most likely have little to no power in the future. Their tying everything to Trump has energized a large amount of people that normally don't vote and Graham's declaration that nominating Trump will destroy their party was right. It started in 2018 when the American people gave the House the power to impeach the President. Then the senate chose Trump over the American people. Now it will be their turn. Trump has turned off a lot of middle of the road voters, the Senate pissed off even more.
![[Image: graham.jpg?w=588]](https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2018/10/graham.jpg?w=588)
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - NATI BENGALS - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 12:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: They used the excuse of the upcoming election.
FWIW, I've always said Garland should have gotten a vote, just as I think Coney should. But I was just pointing out that the Dems are the one that made the bed that they now fight to lie in.
Now ask yourself why will Coney only need a simple majority to get nominated.
Because Mitch McConnell changed the rule.
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - CarolinaBengalFanGuy - 10-13-2020
(10-08-2020, 12:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I voted no but that all depends on the current crooked GOPers running our gov.
As Harris said last night Trump has already stacked the federal courts with a bunch of unqualified lifetime appointments. The most under recognized damage to our country he has accomplished.
If they jam through ACB then yes changing the structure is the only thing to do to balance the scales.
I would also like to know why they’re unqualified. I mean I don’t know any of them so I can’t make a judgment call, but I have a feeling you don’t either and you’re just parroting talking points you’ve read and heard online.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - GMDino - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 12:22 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Because Mitch McConnell changed the rule.
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
That's just a little detail the cons like to leave out.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 08:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's just a little detail the cons like to leave out.
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.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - bfine32 - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 12:22 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Because Mitch McConnell changed the rule.
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation
I supposed if you don't consider a SCOTUS Judge to be a federal Judge.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - GMDino - 10-13-2020
(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.
Correct. Reid changed the rules for the lower courts due to the filibustering of the GOP.
Then McConnell changed it for the Supreme Court...which we were discussing.
McConnell used his power to leave hundreds of seats empty in the hope that he could fill them with good conservatives and he succeeded.
What is ominous is that McConnell doesn't seem to care what happens when/if the Democrats regain control. Although the odds are good they will do things in a fair manner without putting party over country as he has done forever there is no guarantee as the new batch of Democrats have lived through the "Grim Reaper"'s era of governing and may want to even the playing field again.
We shall see.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - Au165 - 10-13-2020
I change my vote. The system is broke, so stack is so insanely badly that everyone agrees we need to rebuild the system.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 11:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Correct. Reid changed the rules for the lower courts due to the filibustering of the GOP.
Then McConnell changed it for the Supreme Court...which we were discussing.
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.
Quote:McConnell used his power to leave hundreds of seats empty in the hope that he could fill them with good conservatives and he succeeded.
What is ominous is that McConnell doesn't seem to care what happens when/if the Democrats regain control.
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.
Quote:Although the odds are good they will do things in a fair manner without putting party over country as he has done forever there is no guarantee as the new batch of Democrats have lived through the "Grim Reaper"'s era of governing and may want to even the playing field again.
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?
Quote:We shall see.
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.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - michaelsean - 10-13-2020
It still won't be necessarily a right down the line conservative court. Quite a few of the Republican nominated justices "switch sides" on important issues. There's always the speculation of which one could be a swing vote. I've never heard that speculation about a Democrat nominated justice. Hell Justice Souter wasn't even considered a swing vote. He was assumed to be voting with the Dem nominees.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - michaelsean - 10-13-2020
I'd be happy for the Dems to somehow thwart this nomination, and then we can shut up about Garland, and shut up about stacking, and start defending Biden.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - bfine32 - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 01:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It still won't be necessarily a right down the line conservative court. Quite a few of the Republican nominated justices "switch sides" on important issues. There's always the speculation of which one could be a swing vote. I've never heard that speculation about a Democrat nominated justice. Hell Justice Souter wasn't even considered a swing vote. He was assumed to be voting with the Dem nominees.
A quick look at nomination shows that swing votes are usually nominated by Republican Presidents.
Gorsuch is becoming such a nomination.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - NATI BENGALS - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 06:32 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I would also like to know why they’re unqualified. I mean I don’t know any of them so I can’t make a judgment call, but I have a feeling you don’t either and you’re just parroting talking points you’ve read and heard online.
I know this administration has made it a habit to not listen to non partisan experts. Try not to follow their lead please. It’s bad for you and our country.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - NATI BENGALS - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 11:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I supposed if you don't consider a SCOTUS Judge to be a federal Judge.
I answered your question. I understand you don’t like the answer. Your little game won’t work here. It is what it is. McConnell is the one that made the rule to allow senators who represent a minority of the population to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. Minority rule power grab.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-13-2020
(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.
Didn't you also argue earlier that precedent doesn't matter? So which is it? Precedent matters? Or precedent doesn't matter?
Quote: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.
Court packing involves changing the constitution of the courts to be more conservative or liberal to effect a political shift in favor of one's political party. It doesn't just apply to expanding the number Supreme Court justices. This is strictly a right wing talking point to defend Mitch McConnell's and the Republican' actions since the Obama administration by obstructing Obama from filing naturally occurring court vacancies so Mitch could pack them with an inordinate amount of conservative judges under Trump even if those judges were deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association. I find the partisan obstruction of filling court vacancies to be rather ominous. Much more so than using a single, narrow definition of a phrase in a transparent attempt to defend McConnell's and the Republican's actions.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 01:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A quick look at nomination shows that swing votes are usually nominated by Republican Presidents.
Gorsuch is becoming such a nomination.
If you have a 5-4 conservative majority court (as we've had since Nixon) and one of the conservatives switches it becomes a 4-5 liberal ruling.
If you have a 5-4 conservative majority court and one of the liberals switches it becomes a 6-3 conservative ruling which is effectively the same as a 5-4 conservative ruling. So one of those liberal judges isn't going to be a swing vote. Because only the majority can swing to the minority opposition to give the minority a majority win. Duh.
RE: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court? - PhilHos - 10-13-2020
(10-13-2020, 03:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Court packing involves changing the constitution of the courts to be more conservative or liberal to effect a political shift in favor of one's political party. It doesn't just apply to expanding the number Supreme Court justices. This is strictly a right wing talking point
This is just false. The term "court packing" comes from the 1937 legislation FDR tried to enact that would increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to 15.
This is what court packing has always meant until just recently.