Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Judges are suppose to rule on law. Unbiased .... So......appointing judges who favor one parties position more than the other is the only real argument... Making judges a political pawn is messed up... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,967 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: Judges are suppose to rule on law. Unbiased .... So......appointing judges who favor one parties position more than the other is the only real argument... Making judges a political pawn is messed up... Republicans broke that tradition after holding back a non-partisan judge (Merrick Garland) just because of who appointment him, and nominating judge after judge that had partisan approval by the federalist society. Amy Coney Barret for example was only a judge for 2 years, starting in 2017! She's not even qualified, just a political back. If Biden and the Democrats pack the court, it won't be with partisans, it'll be with non-partisan that believe in the rights of LGBT+ and the rights of women. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish 6,259 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 38 minutes ago, FATCAT said: Republicans broke that tradition after holding back a non-partisan judge (Merrick Garland) just because of who appointment him, and nominating judge after judge that had partisan approval by the federalist society. Amy Coney Barret for example was only a judge for 2 years, starting in 2017! She's not even qualified, just a political back. If Biden and the Democrats pack the court, it won't be with partisans, it'll be with non-partisan that believe in the rights of LGBT+ and the rights of women. the point is rather you have to practice what you preach. if you are against court packing by republicans, you should also be against court packing by dems. to me this is the only logical and tenable position. but i may be a tad idealistic in this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 11 hours ago, StarstruckIllusion said: What’s better tho? A switching majority or a constant republican rule? I’d prefer an impeachment or some other removal but Nancy waited too long and did nothing. Now we have like 0 options. Its not the worst thing if Biden expands the court.... The Senate votes on the SC. Nancy Pelosi is not in the Senate. A SC Justice is removed with a two thirds vote in the Senate. That was never, ever going to happen. There is no “other way” to remove a Justice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,967 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Fish said: the point is rather you have to practice what you preach. if you are against court packing by republicans, you should also be against court packing by dems. to me this is the only logical and tenable position. but i may be a tad idealistic in this. Yea, sadly it is being idealistic. Democrats have given Republicans many chances to right there wrongs, but time and time again they prove that they don't care about repercussions. At a certain point Democrats have to realize that these institutions are being perverted by Republicans and that the line has been crossed. We can't get back to a bi-partisan court without responding. The Dems are floating the idea now but it's 100% legal, and the size of the court has been adjusted over the years. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peroxide555 587 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Voting for a third party is a vote for Trump. Be strategic about this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peroxide555 587 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 The dems needs to play dirty in order to protect the American people... the republicans are taking ya’ll for a RIDE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eighteen 5,430 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 i disagree with packing the court cause it'll just be packed again when republicans take control and then we'll have a ridiculous court with ten thousand justices. the thing is the senate was lost under the obama administration, and democrats just need to make inroads to lock in the senate more consistently since that is where most of the control over appointment lies. people might disagree with this view but to me expanding the court is extremely short-sighted. if democrats expand the court in 2020, fill it with liberal justices, i am confident republicans will do the same when they inevitably take back power in the future (which they will, because right now, to me, if there were no coronavirus, trump would probably win again--and he still may--meaning republicans are still a very powerful force in the USA). edit: to me the issue with the court is more of an "elections have consequences" issue; democrats, should they take power, need to even out the playing field to make voting easier and fairer, to address gerrymandering, etc. etc. and solidify all this into law. changes like this i think would strengthen the democratic chances of holding the senate for some time, albeit, a challenge could be taken up by the supreme court regarding these new laws, at which point, should they strike them all down, then maybe a court packing might be a little more justified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatican 4,046 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 12 hours ago, Eighteen said: i disagree with packing the court cause it'll just be packed again when republicans take control and then we'll have a ridiculous court with ten thousand justices. the thing is the senate was lost under the obama administration, and democrats just need to make inroads to lock in the senate more consistently since that is where most of the control over appointment lies. people might disagree with this view but to me expanding the court is extremely short-sighted. if democrats expand the court in 2020, fill it with liberal justices, i am confident republicans will do the same when they inevitably take back power in the future (which they will, because right now, to me, if there were no coronavirus, trump would probably win again--and he still may--meaning republicans are still a very powerful force in the USA). edit: to me the issue with the court is more of an "elections have consequences" issue; democrats, should they take power, need to even out the playing field to make voting easier and fairer, to address gerrymandering, etc. etc. and solidify all this into law. changes like this i think would strengthen the democratic chances of holding the senate for some time, albeit, a challenge could be taken up by the supreme court regarding these new laws, at which point, should they strike them all down, then maybe a court packing might be a little more justified. It is time to pack that court. Would you rather have an expanded court that alternates between a balanced bipartisan entity and a conservative leaning court, or have the court remain 6-3 conservative for the next thirty years? We can't keep saying "if we do this, the republicans will do this" again and again because Democrats are getting steamrolled right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 22 hours ago, Fish said: the point is rather you have to practice what you preach. if you are against court packing by republicans, you should also be against court packing by dems. to me this is the only logical and tenable position. but i may be a tad idealistic in this. That's my point..saying the dems are better because their picks to appoint a judge is unbiased is unrealistic... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish 6,259 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 30 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said: That's my point..saying the dems are better because their picks to appoint a judge is unbiased is unrealistic... i agree 100% you cant claim you have the monopoly of truth and vertu, and give yourself a free pass because of your own perceived righteousness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eighteen 5,430 Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 23 hours ago, Chromatican said: It is time to pack that court. Would you rather have an expanded court that alternates between a balanced bipartisan entity and a conservative leaning court, or have the court remain 6-3 conservative for the next thirty years? We can't keep saying "if we do this, the republicans will do this" again and again because Democrats are getting steamrolled right now. as i was writing a response, it just got longer and longer and longer and i realize that for me this issue is just so complicated. i think i can boil it down to this: i'm simply cautious of the ramifications a court packing could have. will it be good for liberals and democracy in the long run is ultimately my question. admittedly, my knowledge of the supreme court is superficial at best, but this issue of packing the court brings up all kinds of questions in my mind about precedent, about the effects it will have on the further politicization of the court and what that means; will this ultimately be good for democracy as a whole or will it somehow be bad, or will it make no difference to democracy at all? will there be issues, like gay marriage, that are constantly in flux because of a flip flop happening every time the power shifts from one party to the other? or will precedent prevent that? with a conservative court, how many rulings will actually be completely overturned because i thought precedent was a thing, or is the concern more about a piecemeal dismantling, or both? what kind of effect will this have on the legitimacy on the court, if any? RBG (i think) once said that these social issues would be better handled by the legislative branch, so does that mean if congress passed actual laws allowing certain things, like gay marriage, would a conservative court strike them down, or would they see it as too much of an infringement on the separation of powers or otherwise abstain for some other reason? what i do know is that what's happening now with the supreme court is part of the normal cycle government. the court has been dominated by liberals and conservatives at one time or another for extended periods of time. the fundamental basis of how this government works is that the senate has the power to approve appointments to the bench, and the presidency has the power to appoint potential jurists. that's the bottom line and everything else is just norms and rules. what republicans did with the court in the last few years is heinous and so utterly hypocritical, and yet everything they did is still within their purview because that is the power allotted to the senate and the presidency by the constitution. if people didn't get caught up in all the noise of the 2016 election, things certainly would have turned out differently, but they didn't, and so republicans won their power and exercised it in a manner consistent with what the constitution allows, and that's pretty much it. in the end, elections have consequences, and now that people are waking up to the reality we live in because of the 2016 election, i am not sure if that suddenly means that they should pack the court because a lot of people suddenly realize they made a mistake. in the end though, i can honestly say that i'm lost regarding this issue. i'm sure that if this packing of the court idea really does take center stage at some point, that all the pros and cons will be flushed out in the papers and i can make a better decision then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.