The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Will you change "Can" to "Will" ?

 

 

Rude-ish way to ask me aside, it's complicated.

The simple answer is no, I don't think non citizens should be counted for the House or the Electoral College.

The complex answer:
 

• The problem with not counting them is if it is in the hands of the wrong people, they will use politics to decide what the volume of non citizens is and where they live. For example they could decide because they want Texas to count for more and California to count for less, they could inflate the # of undocumented in California and artificially reduce the # in Texas in order to take a larger # of votes from California and fewer from Texas. They can just pick whatever estimate they can find that helps their party the most.
• I want elections to be fair and logical regardless of which party it helps. That means if we don't count undocumented workers, we also need the House to be proportional. Right now it's not, which means the Electoral College is not either. The Presidential, House, and Senate elections are all lopsided in favor of low population states. Let's fix everything, not just the things that benefit Republicans right now. I'm ok with the Senate existing, but then the House and Electoral College should work how they were intended and be proportional.

[B.B. Hemingway]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Rude-ish way to ask me aside, it's complicated.

The simple answer is no, I don't think non citizens should be counted for the House or the Electoral College.

The complex answer:
 

• The problem with not counting them is if it is in the hands of the wrong people, they will use politics to decide what the volume of non citizens is and where they live. For example they could decide because they want Texas to count for more and California to count for less, they could inflate the # of undocumented in California and artificially reduce the # in Texas in order to take a larger # of votes from California and fewer from Texas. They can just pick whatever estimate they can find that helps their party the most.
• I want elections to be fair and logical regardless of which party it helps. That means if we don't count undocumented workers, we also need the House to be proportional. Right now it's not, which means the Electoral College is not either. The Presidential, House, and Senate elections are all lopsided in favor of low population states. Let's fix everything, not just the things that benefit Republicans right now. I'm ok with the Senate existing, but then the House and Electoral College should work how they were intended and be proportional.

 

It wasn't intended to be rude. I was genuinely curious.

[Moiraine]

@DevoHusker I have to add, what @knapplc is saying will happen is not even close to far fetched and we can all only work with what we know. 538 put out a good article on it with data on how she has voted in the past. I didn't follow the convo extremely closely but the 15 out of 19 comment seemed to start things and you mentioned all the things that haven't happened in that time. But a problem with that argument is the Republicans weren't as far right before as they have been the past 5-10 years. There seems to be a lot of momentum right now.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-kind-of-supreme-court-justice-will-amy-coney-barrett-be/


 

Quote

We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month, and we found whether it was in regular opinions or in special en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together, she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench. And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues.

 

[DevoHusker]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

@DevoHusker I have to add, what @knapplc is saying will happen is not even close to far fetched and we can all only work with what we know. 538 put out a good article on it with data on how she has voted in the past. I didn't follow the convo extremely closely but the 15 out of 19 comment seemed to start things and you mentioned all the things that haven't happened in that time. But a problem with that argument is the Republicans weren't as far right before as they have been the past 5-10 years. There seems to be a lot of momentum right now.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-kind-of-supreme-court-justice-will-amy-coney-barrett-be/


 

 

Insightful. Thanks for the read.

[knapplc]

2 hours ago, Ulty said:

What the hell are you talking about? It wasn’t about Obama making it a “priority.” He wanted to fill the seats, McConnell blocked it from happening. That thievery led to Trump having more seats to fill. 

 

He has an obligation to fill the seats, constitutionally, as does McConnell.

 

That McConnell abrogated his duty for political bias, and when questioned about that he LAUGHED, is disgusting.

 

And the people who don't know about this, who claim confusion about this, need to seriously rethink where they are getting their news. Because that is US Citizenship 101 level stuff that they are ignorant about.

 

 

[knapplc]

Ya know the kind of person who only comes around HuskerBoard when the team loses, and spews their bile all over, and how much everyone hates that person?

 

That's the same person who only comes to P&R when their "team," who is not America, has what they consider a victory.

 

They are as odious as the transient trolls in the Football forum.

[Danny Bateman]

Since I don't even know who I'm talking to I'm pretty sure I'm fine when I say you trolls can go eat an extra salty bag of Richards.

[FrantzHardySwag]

First justice to get votes from just one party since 1869, 8 days before an election. Trumped posted a campaign ad with her in it tonight. Wasn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a balance to partisan politics? Not really a fan of packing the courts, but R's can thank themselves for what ever comes from a potential blue wave, elections have consequences or some s#!t. 

[Danny Bateman]

Somebody said Barrett should have stayed away from that event tonight and they were right.

 

Talk about immediately tarnishing your reputation as an independent jurist. 

 

Honestly I guess it doesn't matter because the Republicans are the only ones pretending the court isn't political at this point. 

 

Boy are they gonna wake up with a bad hangover in January. Zero pity for those a$$h@!es.

[Ratt Mhule]

7 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

First justice to get votes from just one party since 1869, 8 days before an election. Trumped posted a campaign ad with her in it tonight. Wasn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a balance to partisan politics? Not really a fan of packing the courts, but R's can thank themselves for what ever comes from a potential blue wave, elections have consequences or some s#!t. 

Dems will take over, do absolutely nothing, people wont turn out to vote for their coward asses in 2022 and republicans will take over again. Its a revolving cycle of ineptitude from the “opposition” party. 

[Ratt Mhule]

Right on que. Blaming progressives instead of the cowardice ineptitude of the democratic party. Should have known it was coming. Do these people not realize we voted AGAINST Trump this year and not FOR Biden? You realize that after this election you prob wont get progressives to vote for you again? Do you realize there will be a worse Donald Trump that comes along in the next 10 years because your party sucks a$$?

[knapplc]

20 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Right on que. Blaming progressives instead of the cowardice ineptitude of the democratic party. Should have known it was coming. Do these people not realize we voted AGAINST Trump this year and not FOR Biden? You realize that after this election you prob wont get progressives to vote for you again? Do you realize there will be a worse Donald Trump that comes along in the next 10 years because your party sucks a$$?

 

This offense doesn't make much sense.

 

You're more aligned with leftist Dems than right-wing trumpers. But you're blaming the Dems for the next trump? Wouldn't the party that actually elects the next trump be responsible? 

[knapplc]

This is the person so qualified for the job they had to ram her down our throats eight days before the presidential election. 

 

 

[Ratt Mhule]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This offense doesn't make much sense.

 

You're more aligned with leftist Dems than right-wing trumpers. But you're blaming the Dems for the next trump? Wouldn't the party that actually elects the next trump be responsible? 

Why would I waste my time voting for a party that despizes me? They fought harder to make sure Bernie wasnt the nominee than they did to make sure the republicans didnt get another SC pick. Old a$$ Feinstein is up there complimenting and hugging Lindsay Graham while they try and strip healthcare away from people like my brother who has type 1 diabetes. f#&% the democratic party, f#&% pelosi. f#&% shcumer and f#&% that old bat Feinstein. 

[knapplc]

48 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

Why would I waste my time voting for a party that despizes me? They fought harder to make sure Bernie wasnt the nominee than they did to make sure the republicans didnt get another SC pick. Old a$$ Feinstein is up there complimenting and hugging Lindsay Graham while they try and strip healthcare away from people like my brother who has type 1 diabetes. f#&% the democratic party, f#&% pelosi. f#&% shcumer and f#&% that old bat Feinstein. 

 

I'm not going to argue in favor of any of the people you mentioned. I'm no fan, either. 

 

I don't know of any legal avenue the Dems had to block ACB. If you know of one, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

I get your frustration at the way the Dem party is today. If there's any consolation, your generation is likely to grow up with a far more progressive Democrat party than any in recent history. It's moving in the direction you want, just not as fast as you want. But it'll get there. Enough Americans are waking up to the reality of today's world that it can't not.