Biden Launches Commission to Look at Supreme Court Reform (1 Viewer)

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
530
Reaction score
963
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
I say pack it, stack it, shellack it, tallywhack it... As Moscow Mitch McConnell has proven with his actions re the SCOTUS over the last few years, there are no rules.





 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,886
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
It would be a mistake.

Justices have their beliefs, but we’ve seen many times, at least in the last half century, where their respect for the law guides their decisions more than their interests.

I’m no fan of Kavanaugh. I don’t agree with ACB, but I do respect her.

The more slots we add to the court, the more likely we get people of poor moral character on the court. I’d rather have a justices who believe something different than me than one who doesn’t believe in anything.

We don’t elect justices, but our elections revolve around their selection. Making nominations more common only further politicizes the court, and we don’t need justices who are more like politicians.

We don’t need to go changing institutions that represent stability right now. I feel the same way about the filibuster.
 
Last edited:

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,945
Reaction score
2,135
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
It would be a mistake.

Justices have their beliefs, but we’ve seen many times, at least in the last half century, where their respect for the law guides their decisions more than their interests.

I’m no fan of Kavanaugh. I don’t agree with ACB, but I do respect her.

The more slots we add to the court, the more likely we get people of poor moral character on the court. I’d rather have a justices who believe something different than me than one who doesn’t believe in anything.

We don’t elect justices, but our elections revolve around their selection. Making nominations more common only further politicizes the court, and we don’t need justices who are more like politicians.

We don’t need to go changing institutions that represent stability right now. I feel the same way about the filibuster.

Yeah, pretty much where I'm at as well.

Fwiw, I don't really have a problem with them looking at it. Not sure I'm ready to say something needs to be done though. It is what it is.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #4
OP
Mr. Blue Sky

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
530
Reaction score
963
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
It would be a mistake.

Justices have their beliefs, but we’ve seen many times, at least in the last half century, where their respect for the law guides their decisions more than their interests.

I’m no fan of Kavanaugh. I don’t agree with ACB, but I do respect her.

The more slots we add to the court, the more likely we get people of poor moral character on the court. I’d rather have a justices who believe something different than me than one who doesn’t believe in anything.

We don’t elect justices, but our elections revolve around their selection. Making nominations more common only further politicizes the court, and we don’t need justices who are more like politicians.

We don’t need to go changing institutions that represent stability right now. I feel the same way about the filibuster.






Gotta disagree.


You cant seriously think that Kavanagh has quality moral character (?) And as far as ACB, even though i grew up near her and am around her age- i dont know her personally, so cant say for sure, but some of her documented beliefs and affiliations seem dangerous to the freedom FROM religion, as well as other principles that this country was founded upon...... I do agree with you that adding more justices (i actually hate the term “court packing” and i think it’s incredibly inaccurate) could open the door for even more dangerous types than ACB and Kavanagh- but becuase of McConnell and the Republicans shameful refusal to give Obama’s nominee Garland even the courtesy of a hearing with almost a year to go in his term.. and then shoving ACB through with less than two weeks before the next Presidential election- these people HAVE to be held accountable, and the ONLY way to do that is with court reform, to right those two particular wrongs... Otherwise, forget how dangerous court reform is, you are actually setting an even more dangerous precedent of the next Republicans in charge just refusing nominations or shoving others through at will, with zero regard for what is proper.
 

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
1,123
Location
Lafayette
Offline
It would be a mistake.

Justices have their beliefs, but we’ve seen many times, at least in the last half century, where their respect for the law guides their decisions more than their interests.

I’m no fan of Kavanaugh. I don’t agree with ACB, but I do respect her.

The more slots we add to the court, the more likely we get people of poor moral character on the court. I’d rather have a justices who believe something different than me than one who doesn’t believe in anything.

We don’t elect justices, but our elections revolve around their selection. Making nominations more common only further politicizes the court, and we don’t need justices who are more like politicians.

We don’t need to go changing institutions that represent stability right now. I feel the same way about the filibuster.

That stability was lost when Mitch McConnell sat on a SCOTUS vacancy for a year to ensure a conservative justice got the seat. That action thrust SCOTUS firmly into the political lane, whether anybody likes it or not.

It's time to stop acting like there's a high ground to be had with these people. It's time to beat them at their own game. The alternative is accepting we will eventually have an autocracy. They were happy to let Trump do it but fortunately for us he was too stupid to stick the landing. The next guy won't be and if McConnell has his way he'll install a SCOTUS that will deem it legal. The GOP needs to be utterly crushed and made completely irrelevant.
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
368
Reaction score
474
Age
42
Location
Minnesota
Offline
Gotta disagree.


You cant seriously think that Kavanagh has quality moral character (?) And as far as ACB, even though i grew up near her and am around her age- i dont know her personally, so cant say for sure, but some of her documented beliefs and affiliations seem dangerous to the freedom FROM religion, as well as other principles that this country was founded upon...... I do agree with you that adding more justices (i actually hate the term “court packing” and i think it’s incredibly inaccurate) could open the door for even more dangerous types than ACB and Kavanagh- but becuase of McConnell and the Republicans shameful refusal to give Obama’s nominee Garland even the courtesy of a hearing with almost a year to go in his term.. and then shoving ACB through with less than two weeks before the next Presidential election- these people HAVE to be held accountable, and the ONLY way to do that is with court reform, to right those two particular wrongs... Otherwise, forget how dangerous court reform is, you are actually setting an even more dangerous precedent of the next Republicans in charge just refusing nominations or shoving others through at will, with zero regard for what is proper.

The counter argument is that democrats are only "owed" 1 seat. If McConnell allows Garland through, you still have a conservative court majority today.

I said this in another thread, but I think the much bigger issue is the conservative Roberts court campaign funding, and voting rights rulings.
 

JRad

I'm not a cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
1,535
Age
38
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
I don’t know about expansion (for reasons already mentioned), but I wouldn’t be against making changes to the lifetime appointments.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
1,470
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
but I think the much bigger issue is the conservative Roberts court campaign funding, and voting rights rulings.

I was just reading about that. If not for that ruling, you don't see these voter suppression laws taken up by a bunch of states.

anyways, I'm not sure about expansion, but I surely think there should be an age limit cap. It should be 70 years max and then replaced. And I am being conservative here, originally I was thinking more like 65 at first, then looked it up and saw 5 are over 65 already
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,886
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
That stability was lost when Mitch McConnell sat on a SCOTUS vacancy for a year to ensure a conservative justice got the seat. That action thrust SCOTUS firmly into the political lane, whether anybody likes it or not.

It's time to stop acting like there's a high ground to be had with these people. It's time to beat them at their own game. The alternative is accepting we will eventually have an autocracy. They were happy to let Trump do it but fortunately for us he was too stupid to stick the landing. The next guy won't be and if McConnell has his way he'll install a SCOTUS that will deem it legal. The GOP needs to be utterly crushed and made completely irrelevant.

It’s time to stop acting like it’s ok to stoop to there level.

We won’t care about abortion or gun control when we don’t have a country left.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,886
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
Gotta disagree.


You cant seriously think that Kavanagh has quality moral character (?) And as far as ACB, even though i grew up near her and am around her age- i dont know her personally, so cant say for sure, but some of her documented beliefs and affiliations seem dangerous to the freedom FROM religion, as well as other principles that this country was founded upon...... I do agree with you that adding more justices (i actually hate the term “court packing” and i think it’s incredibly inaccurate) could open the door for even more dangerous types than ACB and Kavanagh- but becuase of McConnell and the Republicans shameful refusal to give Obama’s nominee Garland even the courtesy of a hearing with almost a year to go in his term.. and then shoving ACB through with less than two weeks before the next Presidential election- these people HAVE to be held accountable, and the ONLY way to do that is with court reform, to right those two particular wrongs... Otherwise, forget how dangerous court reform is, you are actually setting an even more dangerous precedent of the next Republicans in charge just refusing nominations or shoving others through at will, with zero regard for what is proper.

I didn’t say that they all have good moral character.

I said the more we add the more likely we are to have people with poor moral character.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #11
OP
Mr. Blue Sky

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
530
Reaction score
963
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
It’s time to stop acting like it’s ok to stoop to there level.





Funny, i am old enough to remember when Mitch McConnell said that his #1 goal was “to make Barack Obama a one term President”....


You keep thinking that “They go low and we go high” is an effective strategy, and you’ll be stuck out on an island with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, becuase they are all just FIGMENTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,886
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
Funny, i am old enough to remember when Mitch McConnell said that his #1 goal was “to make Barack Obama a one term President”....


You keep thinking that “They go low and we go high” is an effective strategy, and you’ll be stuck out on an island with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, becuase they are all just FIGMENTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

If we beat them at their game, there won’t be anything worth winning.
 

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
1,123
Location
Lafayette
Offline
If we beat them at their game, there won’t be anything worth winning.
Pretty much. It's going to be a world with no rules, and ultimately anarchy.

And while we debate the morality of our options Republicans are cramming laws through 47 state legislatures that restrict voting access. They have judges willing to go along with that plan. They have a SCOTUS led by John Roberts, the man who was more than happy to gut the Voting Rights Act because those provisions just weren't "relevant" anymore. We're already on the brink of having nothing to win, let alone having nothing worth winning.

While we were all worried about how we can accommodate everybody's feelings and find common ground, Republicans were busy stacking the courts with judges who will support the anti-democratic laws they want to pass. We either take SCOTUS through extreme measures and then back it up with new legislation blocking the GOP from doing the same or we're already on the path to losing everything.

One side following the "rules" while the other does whatever it wants means there already are no rules. There are no norms or precedents the GOP won't flout. There's no third party coming to save us. There's no split in the GOP that will stop this. They will continue to restrict voter access to ensure they stay in power, no matter how small a minority they become. They're already too ingrained in the system.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,945
Reaction score
2,135
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
And while we debate the morality of our options Republicans are cramming laws through 47 state legislatures that restrict voting access. They have judges willing to go along with that plan. They have a SCOTUS led by John Roberts, the man who was more than happy to gut the Voting Rights Act because those provisions just weren't "relevant" anymore. We're already on the brink of having nothing to win, let alone having nothing worth winning.

While we were all worried about how we can accommodate everybody's feelings and find common ground, Republicans were busy stacking the courts with judges who will support the anti-democratic laws they want to pass. We either take SCOTUS through extreme measures and then back it up with new legislation blocking the GOP from doing the same or we're already on the path to losing everything.

One side following the "rules" while the other does whatever it wants means there already are no rules. There are no norms or precedents the GOP won't flout. There's no third party coming to save us. There's no split in the GOP that will stop this. They will continue to restrict voter access to ensure they stay in power, no matter how small a minority they become. They're already too ingrained in the system.

How are they stacking the courts now? Aren't the Democrats in control of both houses in Congress? You got at least 2 years to make some headway in the courts now. And they can pretty much pick and choose their battles, or do you think the Republicans are still in control somehow?

And fwiw, I think taking the high ground will serve to restore at least some faith in our institutions. Expose the Republicans for what they really are and I think you'll get a significant percentage of independents to support the party goals. Become like the Republicans just proves that the Democrats are no better. So which is it going to be?

Fwiw, if the Democrats adopt the scorched earth approach, we will all lose. And they will not be able to sustain the edge they have in Congress for very long. The best thing to do is do it right, and I believe that will have a better chance of keeping their majority intact for a longer period of time, which will lead to more opportunities to appoint SCOTUS judges more closely aligned to their world view.
 
Last edited:

Xeno

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
1,123
Location
Lafayette
Offline
How are they stacking the courts now? Aren't the Democrats in control of both houses in Congress? You got at least 2 years to make some headway in the courts now. And they can pretty much pick and choose their battles, or do you think the Republicans are still in control somehow?

And fwiw, I think taking the high ground will serve to restore at least some faith in our institutions. Expose the Republicans for what they really are and I think you'll get a significant percentage of independents to support the party goals. Become like the Republicans just proves that the Democrats are no better. So which is it going to be?

McConnell's Senate spent the entire Trump administration doing nothing but filling federal bench vacancies. Vacancies that were available because, once again, Mitch McConnell sat on them to ensure Obama couldn't fill them and they would fall to the conservatives. They already stacked the courts with a lot of very young judges who aren't going anywhere for decades.

As to your second point, I really don't know what you could possibly base that on. The GOP has been openly racist and anti-democratic for the last 10+ years. They stopped bothering to hide it right around when the Tea Party showed up. And yet they continue to control a majority of state legislatures and they still managed to keep 50 Senate seats AND made gains in the House. All of this on the heels of Donald Trump. Between gerrymandering, restricting voting rights, and the hundreds of judges they've installed we do not have time to wait and see. And I sure as hell don't want to rely on "independent" voters to get us out of this mess. I trust them about as much as I trust "undecideds" which is not at all.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,886
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
And while we debate the morality of our options Republicans are cramming laws through 47 state legislatures that restrict voting access. They have judges willing to go along with that plan. They have a SCOTUS led by John Roberts, the man who was more than happy to gut the Voting Rights Act because those provisions just weren't "relevant" anymore. We're already on the brink of having nothing to win, let alone having nothing worth winning.

While we were all worried about how we can accommodate everybody's feelings and find common ground, Republicans were busy stacking the courts with judges who will support the anti-democratic laws they want to pass. We either take SCOTUS through extreme measures and then back it up with new legislation blocking the GOP from doing the same or we're already on the path to losing everything.

One side following the "rules" while the other does whatever it wants means there already are no rules. There are no norms or precedents the GOP won't flout. There's no third party coming to save us. There's no split in the GOP that will stop this. They will continue to restrict voter access to ensure they stay in power, no matter how small a minority they become. They're already too ingrained in the system.

If we start supporting Machiavellian tactics, we start to elect politicians who are better at using those tactics.

We end up with 100 Matt Gaetz in the senate.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #18
OP
Mr. Blue Sky

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***** at Yoko
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
530
Reaction score
963
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Offline
And while we debate the morality of our options Republicans are cramming laws through 47 state legislatures that restrict voting access. They have judges willing to go along with that plan. They have a SCOTUS led by John Roberts, the man who was more than happy to gut the Voting Rights Act because those provisions just weren't "relevant" anymore. We're already on the brink of having nothing to win, let alone having nothing worth winning.

While we were all worried about how we can accommodate everybody's feelings and find common ground, Republicans were busy stacking the courts with judges who will support the anti-democratic laws they want to pass. We either take SCOTUS through extreme measures and then back it up with new legislation blocking the GOP from doing the same or we're already on the path to losing everything.

One side following the "rules" while the other does whatever it wants means there already are no rules. There are no norms or precedents the GOP won't flout. There's no third party coming to save us. There's no split in the GOP that will stop this. They will continue to restrict voter access to ensure they stay in power, no matter how small a minority they become. They're already too ingrained in the system.





Just quoting this becuase i think everyone in this thread needs to read it again.. every single word of this post is true.. yall are clinging to some 1950s idea of what integrity is supposed to look like in 2012, meanwhile you should all be bending over , becuase here it comes again... Sorry i cant be more eloquent, but it’s infuriating to me how many of yall are willing to let it happen.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom