Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[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.