Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Ulty said:

overall great post, and I wish I could give a +2 for using "loggerheads" in a sentence.

 

Assuming all of the following: ACB gets confirmed on the court, Biden wins, and the Dems take the Senate, the Dems need to have a very aggressive legislative agenda, first and foremost being protecting voting rights, and setting actual rules for ethical behavior, but then they really need to get to work to start passing the bills that have been sitting on McConnell's desk for years, passing and fixing programs that are popular with the American public (healthcare, environment) and fixing the damage caused by Trump.

 

Having the presidency and both houses will not last forever, so they need to not dilly dally, and not give a f#&% what the GOP says. If they wanna filibuster, the GOP will have to choose their battles. The Dems need to start getting $h!t done from day 1. 

 

The legislative work has to be aggressive, because even with a conservative SCOTUS, there is a lengthy process before cases reach that level, and they don't hear everything that comes their way. There is going to be some damage wrought by the court, but the Leg and Exec branch can outweigh the bad by moving forward with the good in greater volume.

 

Thanks. That is probably the first time I've ever typed that word out, at least in my memory.

 

Hard to argue with anything here. I've got a very specific wish-list if they manage to pull off a trifecta and voting rights is at the top of the list. I'm tired of the GOP's voter suppression tactics enabling them to push an increasingly unpopular bulls#!t agenda. So after more COVID relief to help the economy stabilize and everyone get whole, that's gotta be first.

 

I'm intrigued by this judicial reform commission Biden is apparently going to appoint, but yes, short of significant reforms there, the only way to respond to the GOP's shenanigans is to overwhelm them with popular legislation and dare them to slap it down.

 

22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Had to give you a trophy on this post Danny.   Regarding the bold -   I think there is one thing that ties it all together - The Turtle's action in 2016 and the GOPs refusal to consider 2016 nominations by Obama.  I think if the GOP had played fair then, there would be no issue of Trump making an appointment and the Senate confirming it even at this late stage. It is their constitutional duty (the president's and the senate's) to do these 2 things - even if it falls right before an election or just after an election.  What makes it seem unfair, is the hypocritical action taken 4 years ago. We all know that if a Dem President and a Dem Senate were in this situation, they would proceed with the nomination.  The villain here isn't trump (even though he is a villain in many other areas), it isn't ACB, and it really isn't the Senate but it is The Turtle.  The Turtle as the leader of the Senate 4 years ago could have taken a different path.  In fact many GOP senators were ready to confirm Garland when they realized that Hillary was about to win.  Garland was a very likeable nominee.  Even my staunchly right wing Senator Inhofe had good things to say about Garland.

The Turtle was ready to go ahead with the process if Hillary had won. This highlights his ruthlessness - if Garland was ok a day before the election, he should have been good enough the day after the election and 'fair play' would have suggested that Garland be voted on.

 

I hope you didn't think my comments meant that I don't care what happens to other people since "it doesn't affect me personally".  Personally, I don't want anyone negatively impacted by SC rulings.  Yet, I hope we can be ruled by a standard - the Constitution. Let judges do their job and let congress do theirs.  I understand the anxiety and the uncertainty and hope in the end the needs of all people will be met via both law and the court. 

 

No, I wasn't trying to call you out personally. I do take you as someone less concerned about the courts as a function of your being an old-school Republican/right of center. And that's fine! We obviously do and should be able to feel different about this. I'm just trying to give some perspective to the other end of the spectrum.

 

You're right about McConnell. How we got where we are now is a product of multiple factors and one of them is him. McConnell is what happens when one has been in Washington too long stewing in a pot of institutional corruption and partisan rot and they're willing to burn everything down if it means more power for their team.

 

This is particularly bothersome because as of recently, the Court had been fairly moderate on some issues in a way that reflects broader public opinion in the U.S. Mitch aims to upset that relative harmony between the Court itself and the citizenry of the country because it's good for his team. Again, because it bears repeating: he abused or broke every norm he could to seize more power so the courts could be weaponized to do things Republicans want even though most PEOPLE don't.

 

Maybe McConnell's utter abuse of his office and gross tribalism will enable reforms that lead us to a better, less tribal place. That would be the ultimate irony. One can hope.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I think the old GOP may have felt that way, but I think the new GOP, the one cozying up to White Supremacists and neoNazis, feels like it's now or never with their base aging out of the population and leftists like AOC and Omar gaining popularity. Nothing the Republicans have been doing these past eight to ten years is based on norms we can expect. 

 

 

 

That is true also, today's GOP is not like your Grandma's GOP.    My post above is from the perspective of the old GOP wanting to keep prolifers on the plantation.  But the new Trump GOP is trying to recreate their base with those neoNazis and other racists and stirring up fear among the uneducated or willfully ignorant or the re-gressives  to form a base to replace those aging out and those who may have identified as GOPers put now have seen the reality of what the party has become. 

 

We need a new party to replace this GOP party.  It can't come quick enough.  Let the GOP party fade away into irrelevancy. 

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

@DevoHusker and anyone else who wants to read...

 

We are talking about 2 topics. One topic is the sheer # (or even % if you want) of judges. The other topic is how they got to that # and what the # would have been if both parties played fairly.

 

On the sheer #:

  • A list of the total # or % of current judges appointed by each president is a trash statistic. This is what people have been trying to get at. The most recent president is going to have a very high #, especially if he was there for 8 years. That's 8 years worth of judges retiring. Of course he has more than Trump. The more relevant statistic is the % of total judgeships appointed per year.

 

On how each president got to that 3 - this is what most people are talking about:

  • Obama appointed a lot of judges, but a s#!t ton more judges were blocked by the GOP. It's the president's duty to fill these openings.
  • Trump had way more openings than he should have had because the GOP blocked Obama.

 

Thanks. And, I called out the turtle previously. But how is the total and/or percentage a "trash statistic". Through hook or crook, that is the number of judges that each President had input in seating. 39% seems high, when considering the total, for any single POTUS. And, @commando @knapplc say Obama total would be much higher without McConnell's devious ways...but they weren't complaining obout the makeup of the judiciary then. Only now when it is trending opposite of their beliefs.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Why wait? Lead me where you want me to go.

I feel like you're missing the obvious here. In a discussion about how many appointments each president has or has not made, comparing how many appointments are still on the bench today is not relevant. The stats you're presenting have a huge recency bias in them because judges don't live forever.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

17 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Thanks. And, I called out the turtle previously. But how is the total and/or percentage a "trash statistic". Through hook or crook, that is the number of judges that each President had input in seating.

 

It is a trash statistic because we are talking about the # of current judges. If you want to compare presidents you look at the % of judgeships they appointed during their term as president. What % of current judges did George Washington appoint? 0%. How about Lincoln? Also 0%. See why that's stupid? Well, it's still stupid to ask how many Reagan appointed, because he was a long time ago too. But using George Washington as an example should really make it obvious why it's stupid.

As an example, if you wanted to compare Obama to Reagan, you would look at what % of the judges in office, in 1988, had been appointed by Reagan. 

Then you also need to account for year since some presidents had only 4 years compared to 8. That's where you look at what % they appointed each year.

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

I agree with this. This has been the ONLY way the GOP has won so many elections over the past 40 years. This is their way of keeping evangelicals on the plantation.  I've always said that if the Dem Party could find a way to be more inclusive of pro-life voters that they would win every election. The Dem party is more 'pro-life' on other issues than what the GOP has been.  It would only make sense if they could find a place of moderation in this issue.  Give up the radical abortion at all costs, at all times mantra (late term abortions - unless the mother's physical life is endangered). 

 

Yep, it has always baffled me that the Dems haven't been able to do a better job appealing to the religious bloc. Especially this election cycle. When the GOP went all-in on Trump, they utterly abandoned the lip service they used to give to family values and any other Christian principle, except for abortion. Yet, the evangelicals happily went along. Dems should have been making more out of this over the last 4 years.

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

 

It is a trash statistic because we are talking about the # of current judges. If you want to compare presidents you look at the % of judgeships they appointed during their term as president. What % of current judges did George Washington appoint? 0%. How about Lincoln? Also 0%. See why that's stupid? Well, it's still stupid to ask how many Reagan appointed, because he was a long time ago too. But using George Washington as an example should really make it obvious why it's stupid.

As an example, if you wanted to compare Obama to Reagan, you would look at what % of the judges in office, in 1988, had been appointed by Reagan. 

Then you also need to account for year since some presidents had only 4 years compared to 8. That's where you look at what % they appointed each year.

 

 

Yes, this. And there's the factor of how many openings there were during each presidency. Each president deserves to fill the openings that come up during their administration. Everyone has done that, from Carter to Reagan through Clinton and both Bushes. None of this is by hook or by crook, it's the job. 

 

Suddenly Obama becomes president and that norm changes. That is what people have a problem with. Using current judges is at best a missing-the-point argument. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

It is a trash statistic because we are talking about the # of current judges. If you want to compare presidents you look at the % of judgeships they appointed during their term as president. What % of current judges did George Washington appoint? 0%. How about Lincoln? Also 0%. See why that's stupid? Well, it's still stupid to ask how many Reagan appointed, because he was a long time ago too. But using George Washington as an example should really make it obvious why it's stupid.

As an example, if you wanted to compare Obama to Reagan, you would look at what % of the judges in office, in 1988, had been appointed by Reagan. 

Then you also need to account for year since some presidents had only 4 years compared to 8. That's where you look at what % they appointed each year.

Man, maybe @knapplc is right and I am completely dense. Of course we have to discuss recency. Washington has no sitting judges. I get that. 

I would say the last 2 Presidents would have the most impact. Clinton, W, and Obama all had 8 years. So a 16 year stretch for 2 recently, and 12 (hopefully) when you add Obama to Trump. So if Obama still, after being gone 4 years has 39% and Trump has 24% then Obama still had greater impact on sitting judges. Not year for year or 8 vs 4 years in office, but impact currently.

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

Man, maybe @knapplc is right and I am completely dense. Of course we have to discuss recency. Washington has no sitting judges. I get that. 

I would say the last 2 Presidents would have the most impact. Clinton, W, and Obama all had 8 years. So a 16 year stretch for 2 recently, and 12 (hopefully) when you add Obama to Trump. So if Obama still, after being gone 4 years has 39% and Trump has 24% then Obama still had greater impact on sitting judges. Not year for year or 8 vs 4 years in office, but impact currently.

 

 

 

 

Again, this misses the point.

 

Do you not agree that each president has a right to have their nominees considered? Not even talking about the Supreme Court here, just the lower courts.

 

That kind of foul play goes against 200 years of norms. Surely you're not OK with that.

Link to comment

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Again, this misses the point.

 

Do you not agree that each president has a right to have their nominees considered? Not even talking about the Supreme Court here, just the lower courts.

 

That kind of foul play goes against 200 years of norms. Surely you're not OK with that.

Ah. So why skirt your actual point. Thanks, and absolutely I am not okay with McConnell's actions. 

 

But my post, such a long long time ago, pointed out that Obama really isn't sitting all that bad in comparison, and if he and HRC would have made it more of a priority they would be even better. They, wrongly, assumed they would have at least an4 year extension.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Ah. So why skirt your actual point. Thanks, and absolutely I am not okay with McConnell's actions. 

 

But my post, such a long long time ago, pointed out that Obama really isn't sitting all that bad in comparison, and if he and HRC would have made it more of a priority they would be even better. They, wrongly, assumed they would have at least an4 year extension.

 

 

HRC would've gotten 0 judges in, because the GOP has the Senate - which gets back to THE point knapp is making.

And to your reply on the #s, Trump has done what he's done in half the time. There will be more retirements in the next 4 years.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

HRC would've gotten 0 judges in, because the GOP has the Senate - which gets back to THE point knapp is making.

And to your reply on the #s, Trump has done what he's done in half the time. There will be more retirements in the next 4 years.

But knapp just said that Presidents should be allowed to seat their nominees, right? 

 

McConnell blocked Obama. Trump is doing what you want(ed) Obama to do. If Democrat held the senate they would do the same.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

But knapp just said that Presidents should be allowed to seat their nominees, right? 

 

McConnell blocked Obama. Trump is doing what you want(ed) Obama to do. If Democrat held the senate they would do the same.

 

 

Why do you think the Democrats would do the same if they held the Senate? Did they do it before? What people keep missing when they keep trying to argue both sides here is who keeps doing the s#!tty thing first. That matters. There probably is a decent chance the Democrats will do it now, but that's because the precedent has been set. They aren't the ones who crossed that line. Unfortunately they can't afford to lay over and play by the rules. At the very, very least they have to make new rules to prevent this from ever happening again - this would be the noble thing to protect this country. The alternative is to play dirty like the Republicans really started to do around 2010. I would prefer if Republican voters would quit being okay with this f#&%ing bulls#!t and vote for better people.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...