The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[TGHusker]

8 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

He who lives in glass houses should never throw stones.    As if she is the only one to every get brain freeze ... after what 30 hours of testimony in 3 days.  Give me a break.  Pettiness at the nth degree.   Most likely she probably can quote from memory a good portion of the Constitution on a 'normal day'. 

[ZRod]

8 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

Assembly and redress are basically the same thing and all but lumped together in the 1st amendment. This is a nothing burger. Not as bad as forgetting the department you wanted to cut.

 

She's fine. Intelligent, well spoken, and obviously qualified. I'm still concerned about her personal beliefs influencing her decisions.

[RedDenver]

 

[Danny Bateman]

The hearings are an utter waste of time. I haven't listened to one second and I don't plan to.

 

We won't learn anything about her at all other than what a tremendous family she has and how much admiration she has for Scalia.

 

We learn nothing about how she feels about issues because she doesn't want to get Borked. You could ask her if the sky our blue or the grass is green and she'd say she can't weigh in on hypotheticals.

 

And they're going to ram her through anyway, so what's the point? We don't learn anything from the process and no one's vote changes.

 

So the GOP has successfully radicalized SCOTUS by having no shame. So the next logical question is how do we right that wrong, and how heavy a political price can we make them pay?

[FrantzHardySwag]

28 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

So the GOP has successfully radicalized SCOTUS by having no shame. So the next logical question is how do we right that wrong, and how heavy a political price can we make them pay?

 

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

The hearings are an utter waste of time. I haven't listened to one second and I don't plan to.

 

We won't learn anything about her at all other than what a tremendous family she has and how much admiration she has for Scalia.

 

We learn nothing about how she feels about issues because she doesn't want to get Borked. You could ask her if the sky our blue or the grass is green and she'd say she can't weigh in on hypotheticals.

 

And they're going to ram her through anyway, so what's the point? We don't learn anything from the process and no one's vote changes.

 

So the GOP has successfully radicalized SCOTUS by having no shame. So the next logical question is how do we right that wrong, and how heavy a political price can we make them pay?

 

 

I've changed my mind back and forth several times. I feel if the Democrats stack the court the Republicans will do the same. I think the Democrats should create new laws for the supreme court. No SCJ nominations in an election year. The maximum number of SCJ is 9. SCJ nominees of a president must recuse themselves from making any decision related to that president's re-election. In hindsight these should've been done years ago.

 

Bare minimum, Democrats have to shore up our checks and balances over the next 4 years if they have the Senate, House, and presidency. Unfortunately if they lowered the required vote to a simple majority it will be easy to undo the laws.

 

Maybe they should take revenge too but I'm really worried of what will come of that, no matter how fair it would be.

The only positive I see about having the new SC justice is hopefully it will rile people up for decades to come from seeing the consequences.

[knapplc]

There's a pretty solidly annotated post in the Political DB HOF thread in the Shed explaining why ACB should not be approved. 

 

She's very clearly been chosen to stack the SC for decades with a focus of reversing Roe v Wade, reversing LGBTQ freedoms, taking away abortion rights, etc. 

 

Why her? Think about all the norms Mitch McConnell burned down to place this person on the court.

[TGHusker]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I've changed my mind back and forth several times. I feel if the Democrats stack the court the Republicans will do the same. I think the Democrats should create new laws for the supreme court. No SCJ nominations in an election year. The maximum number of SCJ is 9. SCJ nominees of a president must recuse themselves from making any decision related to that president's re-election. In hindsight these should've been done years ago.

 

Bare minimum, Democrats have to shore up our checks and balances over the next 4 years if they have the Senate, House, and presidency. Unfortunately if they lowered the required vote to a simple majority it will be easy to undo the laws.

 

Maybe they should take revenge too but I'm really worried of what will come of that, no matter how fair it would be.

The only positive I see about having the new SC justice is hopefully it will rile people up for decades to come from seeing the consequences.

Add 18 year term limits - that will keep the court rotating wt fresh people and fresh ways at looking at things and most likely with a mix of appointments from both parties. 

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Add 18 year term limits - that will keep the court rotating wt fresh people and fresh ways at looking at things and most likely with a mix of appointments from both parties. 

 

 

I'm fine with that too, or 24. Whatever. 40+ years is too much.

[TGHusker]

On 10/14/2020 at 4:21 PM, RedDenver said:

I'm not sure whether I agree with contextual originalism or not. UMich law school has an interesting discussion on how it applies to marriage equality:

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/ConstitutionDay_092215.aspx

 

And here's an excellent Vox piece on originalism, it's history, and how it applies to ACB: 

https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court

Both were good reads.  I like the historical context of the Vox article.

[Moiraine]

The Supreme Court will decide this fall whether the Census should count non citizens.

But we of course won't have equal representation in the House or Electoral College based on state population, because that's bad for Republicans.


The scariest part is how the undocumented # will be calculated. If Trump is still in power they will say there are 10 million in California and none in Texas. Or some slightly more believable #, but the GOP will do everything they can to reduce the # of reps from Democratic states.

[knapplc]

Well, this is something.

 

 

[DevoHusker]

 

[funhusker]

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

God bless America...

 

What a f#&%ing s#!t show!

[knapplc]

I never want to hear a Republican ever complain about having something "rammed down our throats" ever again.

 

 

Remember this when the Democrats are forced to pack the court. You go nuclear like this, you give your opponent no choice.