| There are 45 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
Win the White House and the Senate in November.
A lot of this is just dumb luck and timing.
But I think it would be a mistake to “pack” court.
It’s like in Fantasy Football. Some clown got his ass beat because he had two QBs and kept playing the wrong one each week... so he changed the rules and allowed 2 QBs to play because the a goofball couldn’t manaGe his lineup.
|
|
|
Yes, you don't get to keep changing the rules to suit your fancy.
Evidence...Gavin Newsom and his ever changing 'reopening guidelines'
Although the petition won't get enough signatures, there are still quite a few people who have signed the Recall Newsom petition.
|
|
|
"@jazz51 - how do you respond to an independent voter that asks the following question: the Senate really didn't "advise and consent" on the Garland pick. They staked out a principle - the current President should not make a pick during an election year, let the people decide. Haven't the Republicans compromised that principle? Isn't arguing that Democrats are also hypocrites a red herring?"
I think that's where Republicans made a mistake. They shouldn't have added any extra stipulation to their "advise and consent" role and should have let Garland pass. If they had done that, the Kennedy seat would have gone to a conservative, and the Ginsburg seat would probably go to a conservative. Everything would have worked out in the end. And there would be no talk about packing the Supreme Court with 15 members.
|
|
|
Didn't you read my response? They could have easily "Borked" Garland....I know you are knowledgeable about what happened to Bork...so the Dems started the 'abuse' of nominees. And accelerated it with Gorsuch.
|
|
|
If both parties dabble in misbehavior, it doesn't really matter who started it. Both are guilty of wrongdoings. Democrats and Republicans.
|
|
|
But the Republicans did NOT Bork Garland. Just let the clock run out. Very different actions. The Dems have been vicious. Bork, Thomas, Gorsuch. Totally classless and vile. And if you watched any of these 3 hearings you cannot possibly disagree.
You can question a person without being disgusting.
|
|
|
The Republicans did nothing illegal in their handling of Garland. And it wasn't a problem until Trump won. You had all these pundits and publications predicting a Hillary landslide, like the LA times predicted 352 electoral votes for Crooked. Trump won 2016 and in 2018 the Republican majority in the Senate was increased by the voters in large part due to the handling and votes by some senators on Kavanaugh. Liberals need to quit whining and stop acting like fascists
|
|
|
“I think that's where Republicans made a mistake.”
That’s because you think like... well... you and not a Washington politician.
Their goal isn’t ever just one issue (both Dems and Repubs). Us normal people think about things in simple terms... right and wrong. Good and bad. Fair and unfair.
Politicians don’t. They have to try to project out all of the nuances of a decision. Their goal is the best for their entire agenda... not this one issue.
1. We don’t want Garland... but if we bring him to the floor:
a. Dems will get equal air time to grand stand
b. Our side will have to vote yes or no... and there is an election in a few months. Why put our members in that position... when McConnell (Mr. Turtle who’s seat is secure) can put it off until after the election with little impact on members who’s seat is up.
c. It will give us a slight chance (since Hilary is going probably going to crush Donald) the worst Outcome is Garland gets confirmed in the winter/spring... the Best is Trump gets the pick.
d. We don’t want to give them a big “win” this close to the election.
e. If we lose the senate... this issue won’t matter. If we keep it... we keep control of the process.
f. The undecideds aren’t paying close attention to this... most of this is inside baseball. The optics are we are strong(in control) and they are weak (whiney) to the average working guy/gal.
The republicans played it just the way they should have.... and will continue to. Trump will have sat 3 Supremes in 4 years.
The Dems would deny a Supreme Court pick if they could..... and they can find a way to look good doing it.
|
|
|
Then don't complain when the Dems do what's best for their entire agenda if and when they win the Senate and Presidency (which they are projected to do at this point -- but things may change), and get rid of the filibuster and ram legislation down our throats.
|
|
|
See, if you keep on changing the norms to do simply what's in your interest -- power over principles -- this shitstorm of hyper-partisanship is what you get. And I don't believe that is in the country's interest.
|
|
|
@KS - I don't see the Fed Reserve Board members, who have 14-year terms, being any less independent than SC Justices. Carter appointed Vocker Fed Chair in 1979 and he went right ahead and raised interest rates sky high to crush inflation and fucked Carter over royally. Nor do I think that Jerome Powell gives a fuck what Trump says. I think these days judicial independence is somewhat of a myth on key matters (voting rights, business regulation, cultural issues) - Republican appointed judges tend to take conservative positions and Democratic appointed judges mostly take liberal positions. I don't see any inherent basis in the argument that lifetime appointees automatically make judges more independent than if they had 15-year terms. It is not like they will be running for reelection to the court. Before the two deaths and one retirement since 2016, every court member was over 60 and 3 were over 75. Maybe a case for old-age wisdom but certainly not representative of the population.
|
|
|
whether we hold off on the pick or not...if the DEMS had all the pieces in place to pack the court...they would....they have already passed bills in house for statehood of dc and rico.
you following that? that was before rbg died...so the threats of it are kinda funny
they don't give a shit...they will push all they can to get the power and keep the power.
matter of fact...trump needs a commercial saying all this shit is in motion already and waiting for taking over the white house and senate
|
|
|
@NR - except the Republicans didn't know in advance they would have control of the Senate after the 2016 elections and certainly didn't have a crystal ball that said Ginsburg would pass 46 days before the election. There is also a pretty good argument that McConnell played in pivotal role in getting Trump elected by making the vacant SC seat an issue. Mobilized the evangelicals to vote for Trump.
|
|
|
the list of judges helped...mike pence helped
|
|
|
they were losing a few of those voters and thoughts were this new opening would get them back...rbg could be a good thing for gop all around. we shall see
|
|
|
^But it most likely would have worked out if parties didn't push for extra-constitutional stipulations for the court, simply because we've been having a balance of Democratic and Republican Presidents for a while now. The expectation is a similar amount of liberal and conservative justices if we had left norms alone.
|
|
|
Ahhh, Im torn here.
We definitely need 9 on the bench for the upcoming election assuming it will be contested.
But, damn I dont want Row v. Wade overturned.
|
|
|
but then you are ignoring all the borks, kavenaugh hell...that all counts, or part of the norms we should be leaving alone
there were dem judges getting thru with high gop participation
it all started somewhere...it was not with garland
|
|
|
*Roe
|
|
|
NR.... if you go back and look at the blogs during the impeachment... I have been consistent. I thought the Dems were using their power to unfairly manage the impeachment hearings. I didn’t complain.
I think the Repubs treated the Garland nomination unfairly... but like the Dems... it was within their right.
None of these are “let’s play nice” people. McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, McCarthy, Trump, Biden.... you don’t get those “offices” without cutting a few (or several) throats. This is a game about controlling TRILLIONS of dollars, by far the largest workforce in America, the largest land owner, controlling the largest business, ecconomy etc.. you want to think about it like it should be kumbaya.
“Maybe a case for old-age wisdom but certainly not representative of the population.”
|
|
|
Even though Romney said he’d proceed with allowing the President’s pick to go before the Senate, Romney didn’t guarantee that he’d vote to approve her. Romney is a mix bag and has vacillated between ProLife and ProChoice.
Collins and Murkowski are two Republican pro-choice, Romney is a toss up. Democrats need at least 4 Pro-choice Republicans in order to reject Trump’s candidate even if his nomination makes it to Senate floor.
|
|
|
This has to be one of the first political blogs on this site with well-reasoned arguments.
I don't agree with what the conservatives are arguing, but at least the points being made are not entirely based on fiction. So thanks for that.
|
|
|
Although Romney can be very squishy, I don't believe he can sell to his Utah constituency voting against a qualified conservative judge.
Collins and Murkowski if they get wind that the nomination will pass then they could possibly straddle the fence by voting present.
The final tally would be 51-47, the present votes don't count against.
|
|
|
We are at a point where GOP Senators are saying they will vote to confirm without even knowing who will be picked by Trump - I mean the Federalist Society - which just goes to show you how we live in a failed 2 party democracy. One is neo-liberal and the other is winning and proto-fascist.
NEWSFLASH: Roe v Wade is just a distraction. The real aim is to have a completely pro-corporation SCOTUS. RvW is just to keep the Christian fundamentalists in line voting GOP and fighting hard to freely giving up their freedoms to corporations and the 1% in the name of their sky god.
“The definition of fascism is The marriage of corporation and state.”
― Benito Mussolini
|
|
|
As of today there has been 6.91M COVID-19 cases in the USA. The SCOTUS with a new Trump jurist is going to judge in favor of the case that will include the ability to remove the pre-existing conditions portion of the ACA and COVID-19 will now be a pre-existing condition. Good times!
|
|
|
@KS. Fair points.
|
|
|
I think far too much weight is being thrown behind the Roe v Wade decision. Im pro life myself and do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned and I think a majority of the court would not entertain the question as it has already been decided and most if not all judges do not want to overturn past decisions especially those that would only serve to polarize our country even further.
Roe v Wade os the trope that a person a slave to a political agenda much like the second amendment dors for conservatives. If people were less fearful that these 3 issues were settled and would not be abridged there would be much more common ground between the right and the left.
The problem is a political candidate has to DISTINGUISH themself and the go to the tried and true and make you fear what will never happen.
|
|
|
Sorry for the mis spellings ....
|
|
|
A good piece to read (linked).
Confirming a Justice now will diminish the Supreme Court�¢ï¿½ï¿½s legitimacy.
|
|
|
Psq1-
I agree with you on the detrimental role of corporate donations in our elections and political process. Everything went to shit with Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case that ruled that corporations and wealthy donors can donate without limit to political candidates indirectly. Who’s monitoring directly v indirectly? That’s how come there’s all these shill political non profit organizations (probably even foreign funded) funneling big donations to candidates and/or candidates’ supporters and/or blanketing attack ads. When an man-made business entity can spend more money to support a political candidate than real live US human being citizens that abide by max donation limit, then there’s a problem!
For example, how many ex trump White House staff members got offered 6-figured cushy consultant jobs thru the non profit “Trump 2020 organization” after these people resigned or got fired? (ie Sean Spicer, Amarosa, Sara Sanders, etc) This seems like big donor campaign money is being used to fund a kickback reward for people’s loyalty or silence thru fake jobs.) After Amarosa was fired/forced-resigned from White House, she said Lara Trump offered her a $15k per month consultant job on one of Trump’s re-election organizations. Was this job offered because she’s so indispensable or to keep her mouth shut?
Similarly, corporations don’t even need to risk getting their hands dirty anymore in terms of bribing politicians while in office. Corporations can reward politicians a cushy lucrative job (To serve as a Board advisory member) after they cast a critical vote and retire.
Both Republicans and Democrats big donors and corporations are guilty of this.
That’s why we always hear about billionaires George Soros, Koch Brothers, Peter Thiel getting away with buying political influence by donating huge via their own shadow political action organizations. Meanwhile regular citizens can only donate max of $2800 per candidate.
A man-made construct, such as corporations, should not have more influence than average joe citizens. Set the same limit $2800 on political contributions for Corporations as Individuals Citizens!
|
|
|
Better yet, don’t allow corporations to donate to political campaigns at all. I mean how do regular citizens’ voice compete against multi billion dollar corps, like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google that can spend millions to champion political ads to support the corporation’s interest?
Allow only individuals to donate their $2800 limit to as many political causes as they want. This way it’s very transparent who is supporting what causes. As it stands now, big billionaire donors create corporate entities that they donate into and use this shill corporation to obscure their identity and donations to political candidates or causes.
|
|
|
Mildly... that article points out a political distinction that preys on an emotional mindset. This isn’t the first... or the last time a supreme is confirmed at the end of a presidential term. We are in an emotionally charged moment.(that admittedly has lasting implications). But this, none the less, is just a moment.
The court has been swinging back and forth for 200 years. We have a tendency to make “our” moments the most important. It’s not that they have “no importance“ but they fail to recognize the genius of the constitution.
We need to get over ourselves. Dred Scott vs Sanford was decided by Supreme7-2. Yes...7-2. It wasn’t even close. But they were wrong. It was decided by the “emotional” influences of the time... not a clear interpretation of the constitution. Just a few years later it was reversed.
We need to step back and push down our emotions. People love anger, outrage and passion... but any of us who have ever been in a relationship knows... if you make decisions while under those influences we are usually over-reacting.
Schumer said if Kavanaugh was confirmed the court would lose its legitimacy. He was. It hasn’t.
Appointing Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts was going to delegitimization the court. It hasn’t.
The rhetoric gets hot... for these moments... but then the dust settles... and we are fine. There are no firm one sided idealogs on the court. They are all judges who love the law... and work to apply constitutional standards to their decisions.
Concerning Roe... I believe, as Kavanaugh said in his hearing, the court considers it “settled law.” They have avoided hearing Abortion challenges in recent years. I think that trend will continue.
|
|
|
@KS
As I said, I think you’re a pretty reasonable guy and your reasoning is reasonable if viewed from the Conservatives’ standpoint. Trump, however, has gotten away with murder. Whether you like it or not, he should have been impeached (and removed), he colluded with the Russians (as was determined a month ago via a Senate report), and he has diminished our democracy greatly through Bill Barr.
Trump is an illegitimate President, whether you’d like to hear it or not.
The one lasting thing this illegitimate President has done, and the only reason why the Evangelicals support him, is the ramming through judges via Mitch McConnell. Conservatives constitute less than 47% of the country, but they are disproportionately represented on the Supreme Court and it will get even worse by adding one more Justice to the Supreme Court.
Now add the fact that he’s the only President in history to essentially say “fuck you” to anyone who didn’t vote for him. He’s not even trying to unify the country. There are reports that he didn’t act to help fight the spread of Covid 19 because Blue states were the ones that largely suffered from it early on, and through Bill Barr, he wants to remove Federal funding from Anarchist Cities (NYC, Portland, and Seattle). He is dividing this country just like the Fascist he hopes to be. The only way he is able to do so is through Facebook, that refuses to remove all of the false stories that he and his campaign propagate.
With that backdrop, the last thing this country needs is another fight on its hands, and this Supreme Court nomination will be very contentious. With all of these “wrongs” committed against the Dems, do not be surprised that the Dems finally grow some balls and correct the shitshow we’ve been in over the past 4 years. Trump claimed that he will make this country “great again”; he’s done nothing but ruin this country by being Putin’s useful idiot.
And I know most of what I’m writing here will be deemed to be propaganda by conservatives, until Trump is removed and the full story is revealed. These are very dangerous times for our democracy.
|
|
|
It isn't about liberal or conservative judges...
The issue is whether the judge is an Activist or a Strict Constructionist.
Do they try to make new laws or do they strictly go by the statements and nuances of the Constitution.
|
|
|
"Now add the fact that he’s the only President in history to essentially say “fuck you” to anyone who didn’t vote for him. He’s not even trying to unify the country."
I bet YOU would want to try to reason with people who have tried to undermine you, impeach you, name call you even before he took office.....
I think half of the country started to say 'fuck you' to him way early on and continue to do so, even when he is doing things for the country that benefit everyone.
|
|
|
once we go illegitimate...it's over for anything reasonable that follows
|
|
|
This country has never been this divided. We all need to be worried about what is happening. It can’t continue on like this much longer without lasting damage.
If he made an attempt benefit all Americans, he would have better acceptance. But he won the presidency by dividing the nation by pandering to the fears of his electorate. He is a wannabe dictator. Without Bill Barr, he would have been impeached and likely jailed. And I am serious that would have been the likely outcome.
The Senate report I linked before that proved collusion came from a Senate committed headed by Republicans. There is going to be severe fallout to conservatives who enabled Trump while he was president.
And the Activist vs Strict Constructionist argument is essentially smoke and mirrors. The Constitution is a living document with Amendments that must be adapted to the times. It was written during slavery and women had almost no rights and the early rulings were colored by that time in history. Being an “activist” is adapting the Constitution to present day life and ideals.
|
|
|
race relations took a turn for the worse with obama...what was his nickname?
divider in chief or the great divider
I'm not a BLM guy...you might be. I'm sure trumps not and a few other people
|
|
|
Being an “activist” is adapting the Constitution to present day life and ideals
NO being an 'activist' is creating laws that do not exist. Law is for the legislature to create. The courts are to interpret those laws.
|
|
|
Methods of amending the Constitution were included in the Article V since it was written. The first 10 amendments occurred before the Constitution was adopted. John Marshall made the argument that judicial review was an implied power, because Congress cannot make a law that contravenes the Constitution in Marbury Vs. Madison.
The court may need to interpret the Constitution during judicial review, but the court is not established to adapt the Constitution, but to determine whether the law in question is constitutional. if you have a problem with the Constitution, amend it. Don't rely on judges to ignore it.
|
|
|
"Almost everything you wrote is subjective. Let’s start with how Trump wants to be a dictator. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you read his mind? You have no evidence of him doing anything dictatorial, and so you move the goalpost to what he’s thinking.
If anything, it’s the Democrats who want to be in total power. And there’s actually evidence for it: ballot harvesting, trying to pack the court, demonizing conservatives as racist and unenlightened, trying to bring PR and DC in as states, indoctrination at academic institutions, cancel culture, and proselytizing from the MSM. And this is all consistent with their philosophy that rights come from the government and that government can and should solve all of society’s problems."
@Granite
Come on, Granite. You're smarter than you're showing yourself to be. First, obviously the country was divided during the Civil War, but in the modern era, there has never been a more divisive president and you know it. He's taken a page out of Putin's playbook, and Putin/Russia has been proven to be pushing the two sides apart through social media.
Beyond that, have you ever heard a president since FDR intimate repeatedly that he was going to stay in office beyond the two-term restriction? Trump says it all the time. He claims that "his side" has the guns, suggesting that he'll strong-arm his way into keeping power. He claims that anything that is said against him is "fake news" despite the news being proven to be accurate. Not all Republicans are Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, but all Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are Republican.
All of these things show Trump's fascist tendencies, yet you accuse the Democrats of being fascists? Come on. You're smarter than that.
Understand that Trump is a protege of Roy Cohen, who taught him to lie and to accuse the other side of doing what he's doing. He projects all the time and it is shocking that conservatives are not paying attention or simply condone what he is doing because it suits their own agendas.
|
|
|
@Jazz51
Being an “activist” is adapting the Constitution to present day life and ideals
NO being an 'activist' is creating laws that do not exist. Law is for the legislature to create. The courts are to interpret those laws.
You're right. I mistakenly used "activist" to mean the way existing laws and the Constitution are interpreted and applied; those who disagree with a judge's decision claim that a judge is an activist, despite the ability of a judge/Justice to interpret the law/Constitution to present day life and ideals.
|
|
|
The key word is interpret.....we have judges who go off the rails and do not adhere to the actual law in question. They make it up as they go....
|
|
|
This is starting to get annoying.
> This is from the Supreme Court's website:
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
Justices interpret the Constitution and apply it to the facts of any particular case.
> This is a good summary concerning judicial interpretation and legislative intent:
"In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error.
The courts have repeatedly held that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute."
|
|
|
Here is a horrendous decision
Bennis v. Michigan (1996)
According to the Fifth Amendment, the government may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet thanks to the widespread practice known as civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement agencies get to seize cash, cars, houses, boats, and other property from people who have been neither charged nor convicted of any underlying crime, if they merely say they suspect the property was connected to a crime. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court has given a rubber stamp of approval to this unconstitutional state of affairs. According to Bennis v. Michigan (1996), "the innocent owner defense" is no shield against a state's civil asset forfeiture regime. Where's the due process in that?
|
| There are 45 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
