Biden Launches Commission to Look at Supreme Court Reform (2 Viewers)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

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.

Biden launches 'court-packing' commission

President Joe Biden established a presidential commission to examine expanding the Supreme Court, a demand liberals made of him during the presidential campaign.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DaveXA]

While everyone is talking about water and polling times this is the real crazy thing about this legislation to me. State legislators are notoriously partisan to the point of lunacy. Effectively giving them complete control of election certification is absolutely nuts.

Yeah, I do think that's the most worrisome part of the new law. I think that needs to be modified or eliminated. Not a fan. The thing is, the Democrats are pointing at other things that are not as serious because this issue is more complicated and harder to explain to the public. I think it's also difficult to visualize because I don't recall a lot of national discussion of how this would actually impact elections.

 

[SaintForLife]

This has nothing to do with Trump. This is about Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, using every underhanded tactic they can to tilt the balance of power to themselves despite the will of the electorate and any norms they have to destroy along the way, up to and including blatant hypocrisy and lies. How do you think the Democratic Party should respond to this now that they are in control?

Garland should have been given a vote, but are you really acting like the Republicans are the only ones who use underhanded tactics, are hypocritical and lie?

 

[DaveXA]

Garland should have been given a vote, but are you really acting like the Republicans are the only ones who use underhanded tactics, are hypocritical and lie?

That's no excuse. The Republicans have to stop justifying their own shenanigans. I'd rather both parties have some integrity.

And yeah, Garland absolutely should have been given a vote. That was one of the things that I most despised McConnell for. He's ultimately a duplicitous man who doesn't give a sheet about the rules.

 

[SaintForLife]

That's no excuse. The Republicans have to stop justifying their own shenanigans. I'd rather both parties have some integrity.

And yeah, Garland absolutely should have been given a vote. That was one of the things that I most despised McConnell for. He's ultimately a duplicitous man who doesn't give a sheet about the rules.

That wasn't an excuse considering I said Garland should have had a vote. It is ironic to hear the party that accused a Supreme Court nominee of being a gang rapist complain about the other side's tactics.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Garland should have been given a vote, but are you really acting like the Republicans are the only ones who use underhanded tactics, are hypocritical and lie?

Your whataboutism is showing.

 

[SaintForLife]

Your whataboutism is showing.

Your deflection is showing so I'm guessing the answer to the question is yes.

 

[samiam5211]

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Your deflection is showing so I'm guessing the answer to the question is yes.

The point was that I was talking about the lengths Republicans have gone to when it comes to breaking norms and consolidating power for themselves, which is lightyears beyond what any group of lawmakers has done in recent memory. Your whataboutism is the deflection. Don't wanna get called out for it? Don't engage dishonestly.

 

[Booker]

Democrats have won five of the last 9 presidential elections, and 7 of the last 9 popular votes. Yet 6 of the 9 justices elevated during this period were named by Republicans? I have a problem with that.

 

[SaintForLife]

Democrats have won five of the last 9 presidential elections, and 7 of the last 9 popular votes. Yet 6 of the 9 justices elevated during this period were named by Republicans? I have a problem with that.

The popular vote is currently irrelevant for our elections. Winning a presidential election doesn't guarantee the ability to appoint a SCOTUS.

 

[Taurus]

Packing the Supreme Court isn’t going to fix that. Neither will ending the filibuster.

The Democrats don’t have time to remove the guardrails and make the changes needed before they lose control of the power. They would just be taking down the guardrails saving the Republicans the trouble of having to do it.

That's the problem. The Republicans have shown they absolutely will as soon as they have a chance.

So pack the court, trash the filibuster (especially in the current mail-it-in format), do what must be done with the power we have to stop the GOP at all levels from making elections irrelevant. They've shown that this is the endgame. To obtain power no matter what.
Without their current unfair advantages, without gerrymandering and voter suppression, the Republican party as it currently stands, with the votes it currently represents, should have fifteen fewer Senators, fifty or so fewer Representatives and they shouldn't've have sniffed the White House since 2000.
At some point, the consequences of being deeply unpopular nationwide have to fall upon them. That's the whole basis of our system. And it's been subverted for over twenty years.

 

[MT15]

The popular vote is currently irrelevant for our elections. Winning a presidential election doesn't guarantee the ability to appoint a SCOTUS.

Especially if R’s refuse to give your nominee a vote. After they did that, complaining about something the other side is just talking about and that isn’t even busting a “norm” is just crazy deflection.

 

[DaveXA]

That's the problem. The Republicans have shown they absolutely will as soon as they have a chance.

So pack the court, trash the filibuster (especially in the current mail-it-in format), do what must be done with the power we have to stop the GOP at all levels from making elections irrelevant. They've shown that this is the endgame. To obtain power no matter what.
Without their current unfair advantages, without gerrymandering and voter suppression, the Republican party as it currently stands, with the votes it currently represents, should have fifteen fewer Senators, fifty or so fewer Representatives and they shouldn't've have sniffed the White House since 2000.
At some point, the consequences of being deeply unpopular nationwide have to fall upon them. That's the whole basis of our system. And it's been subverted for over twenty years.

Altering the filibuster and packing the court are essentially non-starters. It's not going to happen. I'd suggest their time be spent on things that can actually get done. There are other ways they can assert their numbers advantage. They can only get as far as Manchin or one middle of the road Republican can take them. Craft legislation that can get 10 Republicans on board and make do. I get the desire to show how unpopular they are, but it's sort of where we are until 2022.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Altering the filibuster and packing the court are essentially non-starters. It's not going to happen. I'd suggest their time be spent on things that can actually get done. There are other ways they can assert their numbers advantage. They can only get as far as Manchin or one middle of the road Republican can take them. Craft legislation that can get 10 Republicans on board and make do. I get the desire to show how unpopular they are, but it's sort of where we are until 2022.

What has happened in recent history that makes you think ten Republicans will cross the aisle on anything? We didn't get ten Republicans voting to impeach a guy that clearly incited an insurrection. We aren't seeing a single Republican vote to put money in the hands of the citizens, force corporations to pay something closer to (but not quite) their fair share of taxes, or spend money to create jobs and improve the infrastructure of the country.

No, crafting legislation that entices any Republicans means it's essentially a GOP bill. That's a non-starter as far as I am concerned.

I understand that you are a moderate voter, but I just don't see how anyone can look at the current GOP and think that playing fair and adhering to the current rules and historical norms will lead us anywhere but right back to McConnell and the GOP stonewalling until they get a majority and the White House again, then breaking all the norms to ram through whatever they want. When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. McConnell and the GOP have shown us who they are many times. There is nothing that should lead anyone to believe that they are anything more than who they've shown themselves to be.

 

[Xeno]

Altering the filibuster and packing the court are essentially non-starters. It's not going to happen. I'd suggest their time be spent on things that can actually get done. There are other ways they can assert their numbers advantage. They can only get as far as Manchin or one middle of the road Republican can take them. Craft legislation that can get 10 Republicans on board and make do. I get the desire to show how unpopular they are, but it's sort of where we are until 2022.

There's no such animal. Republicans have made it extremely clear that anything that would be considered a win for Democrats will be opposed, no matter what. You might get five, maybe even seven if you're lucky. There aren't ten Republican senators willing to go against the party.

When the Supreme Court was expanded to nine justices it was so that there would be one justice for each of the nine federal circuits that existed at the time. Following that precedent, we should have at least twelve justices, thirteen if we go by the appellate court count. That's why thirteen is the magic number being floated.

If we're going to keep the filibuster (we shouldn't) then at the absolute least it has to go back to the old rules. If Rand Paul wants to stand on the floor and make a fool of himself for 18 hours then so be it, sounds like some great campaign ad fodder. But essentially just declaring, "Filibuster! Everybody go home!" and everything grinds to a halt is untenable. It doesn't foster bipartisanship, it fosters minority control.

As far as Manchin goes, Schumer needs to grow a pair of whatever Pelosi uses to whip up votes and inform the Senator from West Virginia that he can either get in line or he can be stripped of all committee assignments and West Virginia can send us a real Republican next time. He'll just switch parties and take away the Democrats' "majority," you say? Let's be honest, how is that any different than the current situation? Little to nothing gets done either way.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There's no such animal. Republicans have made it extremely clear that anything that would be considered a win for Democrats will be opposed, no matter what. You might get five, maybe even seven if you're lucky. There aren't ten Republican senators willing to go against the party.

When the Supreme Court was expanded to nine justices it was so that there would be one justice for each of the nine federal circuits that existed at the time. Following that precedent, we should have at least twelve justices, thirteen if we go by the appellate court count. That's why thirteen is the magic number being floated.

If we're going to keep the filibuster (we shouldn't) then at the absolute least it has to go back to the old rules. If Rand Paul wants to stand on the floor and make a fool of himself for 18 hours then so be it, sounds like some great campaign ad fodder. But essentially just declaring, "Filibuster! Everybody go home!" and everything grinds to a halt is untenable. It doesn't foster bipartisanship, it fosters minority control.

As far as Manchin goes, Schumer needs to grow a pair of whatever Pelosi uses to whip up votes and inform the Senator from West Virginia that he can either get in line or he can be stripped of all committee assignments and West Virginia can send us a real Republican next time. He'll just switch parties and take away the Democrats' "majority," you say? Let's be honest, how is that any different than the current situation? Little to nothing gets done either way.

This all day long. Two changes to the filibuster: require senators to be present on the floor and actively engaging in the filibuster and change the votes needed for cloture from total senators to senators present. That leaves the filibuster in place while demanding active participation.

 

[MT15]

I like both of those, but also require that the senators doing the filibuster actually discuss the bill they are trying to stop. No more reading children‘s books on the Senate floor, who was that, Cruz?

 

[J-DONK]

The popular vote is currently irrelevant for our elections. Winning a presidential election doesn't guarantee the ability to appoint a SCOTUS.

There's no such animal. Republicans have made it extremely clear that anything that would be considered a win for Democrats will be opposed, no matter what. You might get five, maybe even seven if you're lucky. There aren't ten Republican senators willing to go against the party.

When the Supreme Court was expanded to nine justices it was so that there would be one justice for each of the nine federal circuits that existed at the time. Following that precedent, we should have at least twelve justices, thirteen if we go by the appellate court count. That's why thirteen is the magic number being floated.

If we're going to keep the filibuster (we shouldn't) then at the absolute least it has to go back to the old rules. If Rand Paul wants to stand on the floor and make a fool of himself for 18 hours then so be it, sounds like some great campaign ad fodder. But essentially just declaring, "Filibuster! Everybody go home!" and everything grinds to a halt is untenable. It doesn't foster bipartisanship, it fosters minority control.

As far as Manchin goes, Schumer needs to grow a pair of whatever Pelosi uses to whip up votes and inform the Senator from West Virginia that he can either get in line or he can be stripped of all committee assignments and West Virginia can send us a real Republican next time. He'll just switch parties and take away the Democrats' "majority," you say? Let's be honest, how is that any different than the current situation? Little to nothing gets done either way.

I really don't understand packing the court. Republicans will eventually have control of the Senate, and presidency again. Does everyone arguing in favor on this believe Republicans won't pack the court themselves? The ACB confirmation was done in a Republican presidency with a Republican senate majority. I feel like the people who are in favor on this have convinced themselves of a stolen liberal SC majority.