Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


2 hours ago, schriznoeder said:

When the minority party has too much power, this is what happens...

 

 

 

Just curious what's funny about this post? Other than the 2016 House general election in which the Rs received approximately 1.4 million more votes than the Ds, the general elections results since 2016 swing heavily in the favor of the Ds. It's pretty hard to deny who the minority party is in this country.

 

2016 House: 63,173,815 - 61,776,554 = 1,397,261

 

2016 Senate: 51,496,682 - 40,402,790 = 11,093,892

 

2016 Presidential: 65,853,514 - 62,984,828 = 2,868,686

 

2018 House: 60,572,245 - 50,861,970 = 9,710,275

 

2018 Senate: 52,260,651 - 34,723,013 = 17,537,638

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

 

These are jokes, right?

Ari must have been up against the Twitter 140 cap.

 

In theSenate Judiciary Committeecommawhere GOP represents 9 million fewer Americans than Demscommaconfirmingtheirthird SCOTUS justice forapresident who lostthepopular vote by 3 millioncomma just 12 days before Nov 3election commawhen 45 million people already votedearly commaafter blocking Merrick Garland for 237 daysback in 2016.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

These are jokes, right?

 

No. I was initially confused reading it the first time.  Because it didn't flow with all the numbers thrown in.  So I lol'd at myself and read it again.  Why should I have to clarify? 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

Voting rights are quite possibly the thing I'm most afraid for under this new SCOTUS.

 

They just flat out don't give a f#&%. Kennedy halfway cared where he could be persuaded with the right argument but he's gone now and replaced with more Federalist bots and they explicitly think whatever voter suppression tactics states decided are fine. It's gonna be the Wild West when it comes to new ways to deny the franchise.

 

The next administration absolutely has to prioritize a new Voting Rights Act and dare them to slap it down.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Voting rights are quite possibly the thing I'm most afraid for under this new SCOTUS.

 

They just flat out don't give a f#&%. Kennedy halfway cared where he could be persuaded with the right argument but he's gone now and replaced with more Federalist bots and they explicitly think whatever voter suppression tactics states decided are fine. It's gonna be the Wild West when it comes to new ways to deny the franchise.

 

The next administration absolutely has to prioritize a new Voting Rights Act and dare them to slap it down.

 

 

Year one they should prioritize creating voting laws and strengthening checks and balances, then if the Supreme Court deems any of it unconstitutional, stack the court. Then add D.C. and Puerto Rico as states.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Year one they should prioritize creating voting laws and strengthening checks and balances, then if the Supreme Court deems any of it unconstitutional, stack the court. Then add D.C. and Puerto Rico as states.

 

I agree. Well, I think they need to do popular stuff early as well to continue to build popular support, so big COVID-19 relief bills and infrastructure/environmental spending could make a lot of sense.

 

But all of that stuff should be on the year one to-do list. Some liberal academics I follow advocate for a broader court reform involving not only SCOTUS but the lower courts as well to make them more democratically representative and less politicized.

 

I do think Biden's answer about having a "court reform commission" is really smart. It's basically a way to keep his powder dry and keep that card to play later without pissing anyone off.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I agree. Well, I think they need to do popular stuff early as well to continue to build popular support, so big COVID-19 relief bills and infrastructure/environmental spending could make a lot of sense.

 

But all of that stuff should be on the year one to-do list. Some liberal academics I follow advocate for a broader court reform involving not only SCOTUS but the lower courts as well to make them more democratically representative and less politicized.

 

I do think Biden's answer about having a "court reform commission" is really smart. It's basically a way to keep his powder dry and keep that card to play later without pissing anyone off.

 

 

 

But why now?  Aren't liberals saying they want to create a new developing situation where more democratic SCJ will rule on the SC ?  I.E. "packing the courts" in favor of the democratic party?  I mean, does that plan not sound like a new court dictatorship in the making?  Just curious why that is now tolerant, cool and OK to do so :dunno

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, admo said:

But why now?  Aren't liberals saying they want to create a new developing situation where more democratic SCJ will rule on the SC ?  I.E. "packing the courts" in favor of the democratic party?  I mean, does that plan not sound like a new court dictatorship in the making?  Just curious why that is now tolerant, cool and OK to do so :dunno

 

 

Can you think about it for a bit and try to come up with the reasons? I'm not saying you have to agree with the reasons, but at least come up with what you think they are.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...