1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Oct 22, 2015.

  1. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,747
    This is why Democrats have to quit being the laissez faire morons they have been for the majority of my long lifespan. "Oh, well we got a majority in both houses plus the presidency for two years and the entire world didn't get turned on it's head, why should I bother turning out for a midterm election? I'll just let the GOP grind the government to a complete halt so that everything gets worse instead of better." "Oh, well I didn't get the candidate that I want so I'll just stay home...then when a ******* lunatic is in the white house appointing conservatives to the supreme court instead of acknowledging any responsibility for that I'll demand that in order to be elected any Democrat has to promise to rewrite the government to mitigate the damage I have done." On and on and on and on.

    The system worked mostly okay for two hundred years. The fact that it stopped working isn't because "it just broke down and now we have to fix it." Try growing the fudge up and actually USING it instead of crying about how the people who do use it use it against you, Democrats.
     
    hobbsyoyo, Gorbles, Drakle and 2 others like this.
  2. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,747
    It was a pretty solid question as well. Short of "we will not pass a funding bill and shut down the government, and then when you call our bluff and confirm her anyway we will get back to funding the government after creating massive chaos that we would be blamed for" I really don't see where there is anything the house can do here.
     
    Drakle and Estebonrober like this.
  3. HEF

    HEF Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    277


    I don't want to give out any information that may be used against Speaker Pelosi.

    Let's just say that Nancy, The Esteemed Speaker has "options" that can be very effective in halting this confirmation hearing should the republicans get stupid. :hammer:
     
  4. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    4,810
    Gender:
    Male
    No she doesn't and if she does it seems likely to be stupid enough to cost dems politically instead of jsut fighting like rabid dogs. This coy bullfeathers is a turn off to everyone at this point. I can stand her and her games. The only thing worse is the GOP literally driving nails into the nation and planet's heart.
     
  5. HEF

    HEF Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    277


    --- Yes.

    She does.

    ...and this is why I declined to answer you; I don't argue with strangers. Hell, I don't argue, at all.


    (HEF goes back to lurking)
     
  6. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    new alhambra
    The problem is how it's wielded. There's a general knowledge that any global warming, health care, voting rights stuff, etc., is going to be wholesale axed by an uber conservative SCOTUS. They can and will delegitimize the entire congressional branch, a branch who is at least elected. Essentially a minority president with a minority party gets 2/3 of the court now. And the way they will rule will neuter the majoritarian legislative party. We are already at tyranny of the minority, and this just locked it down for decades. We're talking about a country in which a challenge to Obamacare based on a whack argument that congress removing one small part of the law invalidates the whole thing has made it to SCOTUS. An argument that every conservative scholar thought was nonsensical. The supreme court being brought down a peg would be a democratic move, in a country where they don't enforce laws anymore, they essentially wave a magic wand to choose all laws who live and die. I don't think this is how anyone intended it. And it certainly wasn't how SCOTUS originally worked. Judicial review as currently construed was their own invention. Again, we can even have judicial review but with language that gives the legislative branch essentially preferred powers. It wouldn't end the supreme court by any means.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  7. Drakle

    Drakle King

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    675
    The House can not do anything to a Senate nomination, besides distracting their attention. The House has no constitutional role in reviewing the Presidents picks.

    Which makes the system very odd. Normally in two-chamber democracies, there is normally equal representation. Where there isn't, the Upper House/Less Representative body has less power. But instead in the US system, the grossly unrepresentative chamber has more power. The Senate controls the executive body as they can vote up and down on the Presidents picks. And the judicial body.

    Anyway, this seems to actually be the Democrats gameplan for slowing it down.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/democrats-supreme-court-confirmation-421849

    Which they seem to have every Democratic Senator, even Manchin who voted for both of Trump's prior picks, partly on board. Will it work? Unlikely in my view, since this is the top priority. They would gladly sacrifice Trump, and a half dozen Senate seats, to solidify a 6-3 SC majority.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  8. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    59,157
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    While it is not very tactful to make the nomination a month from the new elections, how realistic would it be that in a case of Biden being potus the dem party would be able to get a nomination for the supreme court accepted?
    And yes, I get that even if no dem nomination got accepted, this new rep nomination wouldn't have passed (assuming it will pass). Still, can one postpone filling this position indefinitely (I mean with a Biden as potus)? I understand Obama made no new nomination (able to 8 months before the end of his term?) because he knew it could not pass, so that was the crucial issue there.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
  9. Bugfatty300

    Bugfatty300 Buddha Squirrel

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,233
    Location:
    Mexico
    In that case you should adhere to lurking because your last couple of posts are just pointless spam.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  10. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,951
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    He means impeachment. The House can impeach Trump again to try and derail the SCOTUS nomination process. Whether it would work is unclear, but I think it would be even dumber than fighting the nomination in the Senate. Democrats should boycott the nomination hearings and label them as a sham/farce that they refuse to participate in. The quicker they finish appointing Barrett the sooner we can get back to focusing on the failed covid response.

    The SCOTUS nomination is a distraction from Trump's failures. And its a nomination that they can not stop, no matter what they do. Its happening now, or its happening in the lame duck. All they do by fighting it is give the Republicans an opportunity to beat them publicly and make them look weak and powerless.
     
    Estebonrober and HEF like this.
  11. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    It's exactly on par. The court is somewhat responsive to the public mood. Which is why gay marriage got put in late and didn't get put in when the laws against miscegenation were overturned. However, there were going to be pockets here that allowed it, pockets there that did not and were not going to budge, and Congress certainly wasn't going to pick up the ball.

    That's what a functional court system can manage to pull off when it's working. Groundbreaking and important, even if it doesn't seem it. Which is easy to miss and want to break when the dander is up. I'm with Tim. Much of the power the court winds up being forced to wield is wielded by necessity because Congress just isn't picking it up.

    You don't want the court entirely responsive to public mood. Congress would legislate individual criminal cases by public opinion if it could.

    The go lower argument is always there, there are lots of very savvy narrative pushers that benefit from nothing other than strife. The I'm leaving argument is also always there, as is the go move to a warzone argument. The only real differences are in where the maker of the argument desires to see as a ****hole.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
  12. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,124
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    They could totally gum up the Senate with impeachments. It doesn't have to be Trump again. They could go after Barr or Dejoy or any number of cabinet members who have shady cronyist ties to banks or corporations that undermine the agency they've been appointed to lead. Pelosi should start playing the game Mitch plays. She won't, but she should.
     
    hobbsyoyo and HEF like this.
  13. HEF

    HEF Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    277






    Thank you. :thumbsup:

    You win the internet!

     
  14. HEF

    HEF Warlord

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    277




    You win the internet, too. :love:

     
  15. Gori the Grey

    Gori the Grey The Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    7,233
    Should Biden win and win the Senate, my version of "pack the court" is nominate Garland and one other person. Turn it up to eleven. That doesn't get to a left majority, you say? Right. That's not what you're trying to do. You're trying to undo the power-grab of not holding hearings for Garland; you have the moral high-ground there. You're stopping short of packing the court to your own direct advantage (so you give Republicans less grounds for adding two more once they get the chance (though they still will, I know, I know)). You even things out a little bit. You still count on Roberts to swing your way on the nuttier conservative cases.
     
    HEF likes this.
  16. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    Changing the number without amendment for the first time since 1869 is packing the court and breaking the seal breaks the seal. All else is lies and rationalization. I mean, if that's what you think it's what you think. But don't **** yourself.
     
  17. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,926
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Again, do you not believe that McConnell's tactics for the last five years have broken any seals? Why is it that seemingly only the Democrats can break a seal?
     
    hobbsyoyo, HEF and Drakle like this.
  18. Drakle

    Drakle King

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    675
    Aka Roberts can keep voting to gut voting rights, hands the Presidency to the GOP in close races and enshrines plutocracy but saves his political capital on some high profile social issues. That is just dumb.

    Packing the court having the benefit of destroying the SC legitimacy is a good thing. Judicial review is a power they have given themselves, and they have been a reactionary force for all of American politics, except the Warren court. It was the Supreme Court that tried to enshrine slavery and tried to expand it to everybody else. It was the Supreme Court that struck down the first civil rights post-civil war. It was the Supreme Court which tried to strangle the New Deal and only backed down to court expansion threats.
     
  19. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    I think he did. I said it before even if you're acting like I didn't. I think they should have nominated Garland even though I knew they wouldn't. Breaking the 2/3 confirmation was totally idiotic. There, one more time for you to ignore.

    Packing the court is still next level stupid even in that context. It's not even that it's immoral. It's that it's fantastically dumb.

    Everyone is mad that the EC and the Senate "makes them lose" or something. So let's make good and sure that those two institutions can give the judiciary its marching orders by normalizing them restructuring it anytime it gives unsatisfactory result. It's seriously like wtf territory.

    Well, I guess it's not. It's "the independent judiciary is a bad thing" overt. This literally is the rhetoric of war. Fine. I guess I forgot who I was talking with. Let's keep the quality in mind.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
  20. Hamid.H

    Hamid.H Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2019
    Messages:
    312
    the math doesnt add up

    hillary
    16,917,853/2,842 = 5,952 popular votes per delegate

    bernie
    13,210,550/1,865 = 7,083 popular votes per delegate

    total contests: 34 (hillary) + 23 (bernie) = 57

    hillary 55.23% popular vote
    57(0.5523)= 31 contests earned vs 34 actually won

    bernie 43.13% popular vote
    26 contests earned vs 23 actually won
    berine needed to earn over 1,000 more votes per delegate. the democrat establishment has an "electoral college" of their own.

    the table is slanted. the game was rigged. hillary was always meant to win.
    thanks for outing yourself as an establishment shill for hillary.
    a white collar wannabe establishment elite that thinks the nomination being rigged for hillary from the very start is a-okay.
    nobody runs a candidate against a sitting president. this is just a stupid thing to even say.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020

Share This Page