2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Kyriakos]

Biden must be the first case of a lame duck president who isn't even elected yet.

 

[KaibaCorp]

Packing the court is a terrible idea, he can’t commit to it. He’s just wriggling.

 

[Lexicus]

Packing the court is a terrible idea, he can’t commit to it. He’s just wriggling.

Why is packing the court a terrible idea?

 

[KaibaCorp]

Why is packing the court a terrible idea?

It’s a check to the other branches, if the court is packed (which will set the precedent for all presidents to continue to do when they’re elected) it becomes an extension of the legislative and exec instead of a check to preserving fidelity to the constitution as it is meant to be.

 

[Estebonrober]

The court already is an extension of the branches. It’s a check only in the sense that it litigates what is legislated. The farce that it’s above politics needs to die. This court has made sport of limiting voter rights so it has no legitimacy in my mind anyways. Of course neither does congress and certainly not the executive branch. So take it for what it’s worth.

 

[Lexicus]

It’s a check to the other branches, if the court is packed (which will set the precedent for all presidents to continue to do when they’re elected) it becomes an extension of the legislative and exec instead of a check to preserving fidelity to the constitution as it is meant to be.

The Constitution has Justices appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate, so it is already an "extension" of the executive and legislative branches and has been since its inception.

Also, just to be clear, you don't think it is a problem that Obama was denied an opportunity to appoint a justice to the court? Do you believe it's a problem that if ACB is confirmed three of the nine justices will have been appointed by a President who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a Senate majority representing ten or fifteen million fewer people than the Senate minority?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Apparently... and frankly astonishingly... Biden appears to have gotten higher ratings/viewership for his Town Hall than Trump.

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/donald-trump-joe-biden-town-halls-nbc-abc-ratings-1234807507/

I mean, that's good news, I think, but I fully expected more people to tune in to Trump's Town Hall to see the spectacle. Maybe people are just truly, finally exhausted with his BS.

 

[KaibaCorp]

The court already is an extension of the branches. It’s a check only in the sense that it litigates what is legislated. The farce that it’s above politics needs to die. This court has made sport of limiting voter rights so it has no legitimacy in my mind anyways. Of course neither does congress and certainly not the executive branch. So take it for what it’s worth.

It’s a check because it is meant to keep unconstitutional laws from passing from legislators (or in a sense presidents), it’s still a check despite how you personally feel about rulings and/or non-rulings.

 

[KaibaCorp]

The Constitution has Justices appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate, so it is already an "extension" of the executive and legislative branches and has been since its inception.

Also, just to be clear, you don't think it is a problem that Obama was denied an opportunity to appoint a justice to the court? Do you believe it's a problem that if ACB is confirmed three of the nine justices will have been appointed by a President who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a Senate majority representing ten or fifteen million fewer people than the Senate minority?

President nominates, Senate must confirm and appoint. The branch evidently still operates as a check despite the origin of its justices.

Obama nominated a judge, as is his power, and the Senate denied, as is their power. It’s not a problem, it’s how the system is setup. Speaking of how the system is set up, the electoral college was put in place to keep population majorities in certain areas from dominating political decisions (direct democracy) from having say over everything. Losing majority vote doesn’t really matter as the winner of the presidency is not elected that way. It does not invalidate senates or presidencies. It’s fine to not agree with how the constitutional republic is setup, but it’s not like anyone is breaking rules right now with the justice appointment. How I feel about her appointment doesn’t mean much if it’s being done constitutionally, which it is.

 

[Lexicus]

Obama nominated a judge, as is his power, and the Senate denied, as is their power. It’s not a problem, it’s how the system is setup

I'm glad you think so, because Congress setting the number of justices is also how the system is set up

How I feel about her appointment doesn’t mean much if it’s being done constitutionally, which it is.

Then by the same token, how you feel about court packing doesn't matter much if it's constitutional, which it is.

 

[Ajidica]

It’s a check because it is meant to keep unconstitutional laws from passing from legislators (or in a sense presidents), it’s still a check despite how you personally feel about rulings and/or non-rulings.

What if the a majority overturns a constitutional law on spurious grounds, like Shelby v Holder?
Congress had reauthorized the VRA in 2006, but the conservative majority essentially ruled that the relevant section of the VRA was unconstitutional because it worked and that the Court knew better than Congress on legislation.

Obama nominated a judge, as is his power, and the Senate denied, as is their power.

To clarify, the Senate never actually held a vote to confirm Garland, they simply refused to even hold hearings on the nomination. If the Senate had held hearings and in a vote denied Garland's appointment, that is fully within their rights to do so. Simply refusing to hold a hearing or vote makes it pretty clear the Senate did not do their constitutional duties with regards to a presidential appointment.

Speaking of how the system is set up, the electoral college was put in place to keep population majorities in certain areas from dominating political decisions (direct democracy) from having say over everything.

Should a population minority be allowed to dominate political decisions?

 

[thecrazyscot]

As an aside... I've tried the "Impossible Whopper" at Burger King. I think "impossible" is apropos, because as I understand it... the sodium content basically neutralizes any potential health benefits of it being vegan.

To follow you down the tangent...

The Impossible patty is not meant to be healthier than a meat patty. It is supposed to be a plant-based alternative to a meat patty with a comparable taste - that is all. The benefit is intended to be environmental, not healthiness. No one should be eating burgers of any kind at a large rate, despite how delicious they are.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To follow you down the tangent...

The Impossible patty is not meant to be healthier than a meat patty. It is supposed to be a plant-based alternative to a meat patty with a comparable taste - that is all. The benefit is intended to be environmental, not healthiness. No one should be eating burgers of any kind at a large rate, despite how delicious they are.

I think you missed the point of my post. The relative "healthiness" of impossible meat is irrelevant. The point is that as a society, we are progressing in a positive direction, albeit slowly in some regards, too slowly for many folks... but nevertheless, progressing.

In my view electing Biden is a better move towards that progress than Trump... much better.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I think you missed the point of my post. The relative "healthiness" of impossible meat is irrelevant. The point is that as a society, we are progressing in a positive direction, albeit slowly in some regards, too slowly for many folks... but nevertheless, progressing.

Oh, well, carry on then.

 

[KaibaCorp]

I'm glad you think so, because Congress setting the number of justices is also how the system is set up



Then by the same token, how you feel about court packing doesn't matter much if it's constitutional, which it is.

All true. Court packing would undo a 150 year old consistency though whereas the crying about nominating another justice during the possible tail-end of a presidency is just that, whining.

 

[Hrothbern]

Why not update the SC with the PR of the last Presidential elections ?
(and keeping an uneven number of 9, meaning that a 52%-48% PR converts into 5-4)

And if you want more checks & balances you can use the forelast elections the same way, then the SC lags four years with the PR.

 

[Lexicus]

All true. Court packing would undo a 150 year old consistency

Is this whining I detect? Crying perhaps?

 

[KaibaCorp]

What if the a majority overturns a constitutional law on spurious grounds, like Shelby v Holder?
Congress had reauthorized the VRA in 2006, but the conservative majority essentially ruled that the relevant section of the VRA was unconstitutional because it worked and that the Court knew better than Congress on legislation.

What were the actual grounds on which the court made its decision?

To clarify, the Senate never actually held a vote to confirm Garland, they simply refused to even hold hearings on the nomination. If the Senate had held hearings and in a vote denied Garland's appointment, that is fully within their rights to do so. Simply refusing to hold a hearing or vote makes it pretty clear the Senate did not do their constitutional duties with regards to a presidential appointment.

Well that’s wrong and they should have formally met, though he wouldn’t have been approved anyway. Just more reason to make sure the legislative branch can be checked imo.

Should a population minority be allowed to dominate political decisions?

A minority to dominate? Of course not, the system is meant to be a compromise to keep both more equal than otherwise.
Sorry, new to the board, idk how to reply in different places of your post.

 

[KaibaCorp]

Is this whining I detect? Crying perhaps?

Haha no, only a recognition of something actually working consistently in government for once, and a cautiousness to change that, possibly for the worse.

 

[El_Machinae]

All true. Court packing would undo a 150 year old consistency though whereas the crying about nominating another justice during the possible tail-end of a presidency is just that, whining.

You're right. And it's a case of "they started it". Refusing to debate a nominee, enacting the nuclear option for the Supreme Court, and entering a new decade where we lack bipartisan consensus on judges is all breaking new ground.