Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Lol. A sitting justice died.... Replacing that judge isn't packing the courts.

 

And for the record, I agree that the GOP acted conveniently in 2016, and are now.... But, they did, and aren't currently doing anything that the Democrats wouldn't do, or would have done, if they were in a position to do so.

 

They placed loads and loads of young, many demonstrably unqualified jurists into lifetime positions with hopes that they will usher in decades of their preferred policy outcomes.

 

I really think the best way to think about this is what is best for the court system and the country as a whole, rather than whatever benefits either side or whatever arbitrary rules they decide to play by.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

They placed loads and loads of young, many demonstrably unqualified jurists into lifetime positions with hopes that they will usher in decades of their decided policy outcomes.

 

I really think the best way to think about this is what is best for the court system and the country as a whole, rather than whatever benefits either side or whatever arbitrary rules they decide to play by.

Yep! 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Lol. A sitting justice died.... Replacing that judge isn't packing the courts.

 

And for the record, I agree that the GOP acted conveniently in 2016, and are now.... But, they did, and aren't currently doing anything that the Democrats wouldn't do, or would have done, if they were in a position to do so.

You're literally making the case for why the Dems should expand the court. And that the Repubs did it first.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I agree. I only take issues with Biden's plans to pack the courts because his reason for doing so is simply because his party's interests are outnumbered. I don't like the precedent it sets. A precedent that the GOP would surely take advantage at their first opportunity.

 

You know this isn't true. You're aware enough of what McConnell has done to Obama's nominees to not say this, knowing it's absurdly false.

 

McConnell instituted the nuclear option six years ago after a Black man became President, and the Republicans are reaping the rewards of McConnell's racist actions.

 

And they deserve it - McConnell's politics are not the politics of the good Republicans I grew up knowing, and they don't deserve defense on the stage of American civil discourse.

 

We, Americans, believe that "All men are created equal." And that all people deserve "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."

 

McConnell's narrow, bigoted politics would keep that American Dream from American citizens.

 

I know you join me in the defense of their civil liberties. Right?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

You know this isn't true. You're aware enough of what McConnell has done to Obama's nominees to not say this, knowing it's absurdly false.

 

McConnell instituted the nuclear option six years ago when a Black man became President, and the Republicans are reaping the rewards of McConnell's racist actions.

 

And they deserve it - McConnell's politics are not the politics of the good Republicans I grew up knowing, and they don't deserve defense on the stage of American civil discourse.

 

We, Americans, believe that "All men are created equal." And that all people deserve "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."

 

McConnell's narrow, bigoted politics would keep that American Dream from American citizens.

 

I know you join me in the defense of their civil liberties. Right?

 

You won't catch me coming to the defense of McConnell. I didn't agree with the GOPs actions towards the end of Obama's presidency, but moving the goal posts is nothing new in the federal government.

 

If the Supreme Court was balanced in the favor of Biden and his party's shared interests he wouldn't be entertaining the idea of adding justices, so I suppose I stand by my opinion of that being his reasoning.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You won't catch me coming to the defense of McConnell. I didn't agree with the GOPs actions towards the end of Obama's presidency, but moving the goal posts is nothing new in the federal government.

 

If the Supreme Court was balanced in the favor of Biden and his party's shared interests he wouldn't be entertaining the idea of adding justices, so I suppose I stand by my opinion of that being his reasoning.

 

So you acknowledge McConnell's perfidy, you understand that the Supreme Court is not representative of the wishes of the American people, and you don't agree with rigging the courts.

 

But since it's currently been rigged in favor of your political ideals, you'll just forget and forgive.

 

Super cool story. And a super great argument in favor of the President reflective of the American majority fixing the Supreme Court.

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

So you acknowledge McConnell's perfidy, you understand that the Supreme Court is not representative of the wishes of the American people, and you don't agree with rigging the courts.

 

But since it's currently been rigged in favor of your political ideals, you'll just forget and forgive.

 

Super cool story. And a super great argument in favor of the President reflective of the American majority fixing the Supreme Court.

 

I didn't say any of that, but you do you.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I didn't say any of that, but you do you.

 

I mean that's what it boils down to, right?

 

You don't care that they used dirty tricks to stack the courts because you agree with the rulings you think you'll get out of the deal, right?

 

If that is indeed the case, just admit it. It's way easier to have such conversations if everyone is just honest about what they support.

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment

Oh, by the way, if you're wondering how the people responsible for stacking the courts are doing, they're doing great!

 

There's HUGE (dark) money in the fight to further swing the judiciary towards conservatism. And I have a hard time believing folks are giving millions and millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts or the firmness of their beliefs. They're doing it because they know the profits will more than make up for it when their handpicked judges decide to further gut things people care about like the environment and voting rights.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Republicans have already packed the courts

 

Boy, it's really hard to feel any pity at the notion of them being upset about reaping what they've sown.

 

Quote

The first so-called success was in Arizona. Early in 2016, a Republican lawmaker introduced House Bill 2537, which sought to expand the Arizona Supreme Court from five to seven justices. The Republican-controlled legislature approved the measure, despite no support from Democrats. Nor was it supported by any of the court’s five justices, with the chief justice writing to the governor that additional seats were “not required by the Court’s caseload” and in fact would be “unwarranted” given how costly such a proposal would be at a time when other court-related needs were “underfunded.” Several news outlets called the bill an attempt to “Bring Back Court-Packing,” noting that the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, would select the new justices from a list created by the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments (whose members the governor nominates). Days later, the governor signed the bill into law. The two new justices (both appointed by Ducey) took their seats in December 2016, tilting that court further to the right.

 

Georgia offers another example of successful court-packing. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Georgia had four Democratic and three Republican appointees. That spring, the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed a bill expanding the court to nine justices and giving the Republican governor — who promptly signed the bill into law — the power to fill the two new seats in the first instance. By early 2017, then-Gov. Nathan Deal had done so, resulting in a “more conservative-leaning court.”

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

And no Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 30 years.

 

Pack that court. Pack it right up.

 

And yet we still have legal abortions, same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act, DACA etc. All of which I personally support, as do you. Why do you feel they need to add 4 more Justices?

 

https://theconversation.com/its-still-a-conservative-supreme-court-even-after-recent-liberal-decisions-heres-why-144477 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

And yet we still have legal abortions, same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act, DACA etc. All of which I personally support, as do you. Why do you feel they need to add 4 more Justices?

 

https://theconversation.com/its-still-a-conservative-supreme-court-even-after-recent-liberal-decisions-heres-why-144477 

 

 

Because they're already signaling that those rights will be taken away. 

 

 

Quote

 

Justices Already Attacking Roe v Wade

 

 

ALERT---Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion today that repeatedly attacked the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges – which legalized marriage equality in all 50 states – as unconstitutional because it “bypassed” the “democratic process” and cause people “with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage” to “find it increasingly difficult to participate in society.”

“By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix,” wrote Thomas, who was joined by Justice Samuel Alito. “Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.’”

Thomas made the statements about Obergefell while denying a petition from Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her Christian beliefs. She has been involved in litigation ever since and asked the Supreme Court this year to overturn an appeals court decision that held her liable for violating people’s rights as an elected official.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Thomas and Alito agreed with the Court because Davis’s case “does not cleanly present” a chance to overturn Obergefell, but they explained exactly why they think the landmark marriage equality decision is unconstitutional.

Thomas called Davis a “devout Christian” who was “one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision.” He wrote that now Christians who oppose LGBTQ equality are being branded “as bigots.”

When bakers refuse to sell cakes to same-sex couples are held liable for discrimination, Thomas argued, the problem is not just anti-discrimination laws but Obergefell itself because it legalized marriage equality.

Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss,” he wrote.

“Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy.”

While Thomas and Alito don’t currently have a majority of the court to overturn the decision, the ACLU’s Chase Strangio noted on Twitter that it’s unusual to see Supreme Court justices openly show their desire to overturn a five-year-old decision.

“The brazenness of the rightward direction of the Court is a threat to even the most basic expectation of legal protection,” he tweeted.

Vox‘s Ian Millhiser called it “astonishing” that two Supreme Court justices want to take away civil rights from a minority just because some people who oppose them have been called “unkind words.”

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...