The Courts (not specific to either party)

[Loebarth]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Watching the SCOTUS recently drills home the opinion I've had for a long time.  The SC is best when it's a 5-4 split.  One side having a large majority on the SC is a really bad thing.

I agree with you here. Sadly though a stack Supreme Court is often wanted by both parties. To be honest though, if justice truly is blind, it shouldn't matter but we all know how often politics plays a huge part in the outcomes. I am also against lifetime appointments. Seriously, all elected and appointed positions pertaining to government both state and federal should have term limits but especially supreme court justices for just this reason. It would prevent (or at least make it more difficult to) stacking. Also, age restrictions on justices. 75 and the judge is removed mid-term or early term. Also, I'm not against adding by term/age limiting. Meaning if a justice has fulfilled their term or has breached the age limit, they are honored by respecting their accomplishments through advisory positions to the court. 

[TGHusker]

21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah, I've seen that.  The conservative justices want to delay it as long as possible so it further delays some of his trials so they aren't decided before the election.

 

Yes, this should be the most important decision they are deciding and it should be done immediately.  

 

Watching the SCOTUS recently drills home the opinion I've had for a long time.  The SC is best when it's a 5-4 split.  One side having a large majority on the SC is a really bad thing.

Yes, agree on the bold.  Of course I use to think the same about Congress - Dem / GOP split.  But until the GOP gets rid of its cultish/MAGA ways, I don't want them controlling either the house or the senate. 

[TGHusker]

10 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

I agree with you here. Sadly though a stack Supreme Court is often wanted by both parties. To be honest though, if justice truly is blind, it shouldn't matter but we all know how often politics plays a huge part in the outcomes. I am also against lifetime appointments. Seriously, all elected and appointed positions pertaining to government both state and federal should have term limits but especially supreme court justices for just this reason. It would prevent (or at least make it more difficult to) stacking. Also, age restrictions on justices. 75 and the judge is removed mid-term or early term. Also, I'm not against adding by term/age limiting. Meaning if a justice has fulfilled their term or has breached the age limit, they are honored by respecting their accomplishments through advisory positions to the court. 

I think 18 years max on the SC.  2 full presidential terms plus 2 years.    Like any job, it is hard to keep the creative, intellectual juices flowing after a number of years.  The challenge to think creativity is often lost and ruts are formed.   Culture changes much in 18 years but of course, we want decisions to be tied to the constitutionality of the an issue and not by flippant cultural changes.  

[commando]

43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Yes, this should be the most important decision they are deciding and it should be done immediately.  

 

the fact that they didn't instantly laugh this case out of court and rule against him when the lawyers said trump could kill his political rivals is telling

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

How do you know this? 

I don't.  I'm saying that's what I've seen some people predicting.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I've been told I should relax and trust our system of checks and balances, but it feels like the SC just turned up the heat on our Boil the Frog scenario. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

I think 18 years max on the SC.  2 full presidential terms plus 2 years.    Like any job, it is hard to keep the creative, intellectual juices flowing after a number of years.  The challenge to think creativity is often lost and ruts are formed.   Culture changes much in 18 years but of course, we want decisions to be tied to the constitutionality of the an issue and not by flippant cultural changes.  

I'm beginning to become OK with term limits.  However, I think it needs to coincide with Presidential terms somehow.  In my perfect world, a justice would leave the court every 4 years.  So, a Presidential election is in 2024, so in 2025, that President gets to nominate one justice.  It's early in his/her term and not in an election year.  The only way one party can stack the court is if, for some reason, a second justice also leaves in that term.  OR....one party maintains the White House for an extended period of time.

 

The problem with that is, that means a justice is on the bench for 36 years.  So, maybe my idea needs to be modified so that a justice steps down every two years, so in 2025 and again in 2027, giving that president two nominations. (your 18 years)

 

Also with my idea, each justice would know exactly when their term is up.  There would be much less game playing on when they are going to "retire".  That is, unless the justice wants to retire early....which, I don't know how to fix.

[commando]

would be funny if it wasn't true

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

've been told I should relax and trust our system of checks and balances,

That’s pretty good advice! 

[JJ Husker]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That’s pretty good advice! 

IDK, the checks and balances have been pretty darned insufficient here the last few years. If they were working properly, DJT could not and would not be a viable presidential candidate. Obviously there are some flaws or something is broken.

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That’s pretty good advice! 

 

Largely mitigated by the fact that so much of what the advice-giver swore would never happen, has happened. 

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Largely mitigated by the fact that so much of what the advice-giver swore would never happen, has happened. 

As in? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

• Donald Trump was exonerated and will not be making Putin-friendly decisions in office. 

 

• Donald Trump isn't going to fight the results of the 2020 election

 

• And if he does, Donald Trump isn't going to do something crazy, like instigate a violent coup.

 

• And if he does instigate a violent coup, the Republicans will quickly distance themselves from him. The "election hoax" rhetoric will fade to oblivion and the GOP will return to issues-based campaigning. 

 

• As they distance themselves from Trump, the GOP will embrace saner alternatives, like Ron DeSantis.

 

• Trump's Supreme Court appointees are reasonable folks who made it clear they're fine with the Roe v Wade precedent. Why are you freaking out?

 

• The Marjorie Taylor Greene wing will not exert any significant influence on the party itself.

 

• What paranoid world do you live in where Donald Trump inserts his daughter-in-law as the RNC chairwoman, and funnels the money to himself? 

 

• Our electoral college system held, and only a worrywort would think red state legislatures might take a lesson from 2020 and reengineer the rules to make it easier to overrule the popular vote.

 

• And if they do, it probably won't come into play. Because Biden is going to win so handily over Joe Biden, even MAGA will accept defeat and work together to advance this great country of ours. 

 

• We remain a nation of laws. It's not like the Supreme Court is going to look America in the eye and say a President is immune from the laws we citizens must follow. That's a dictatorship, man. 

 

• And when the guy I voted for twice promises a scorched earth, day-one dictator second term, he's just kidding to get you libs riled up. What has he ever done to make you think he'll go off the rails and take as many people as possible with him?  

[Scarlet]

This might be due for a poll question soon.  "Who gets executed first?" since the Supreme Court is entertaining the idea that it's all a-ok.  But fortunately the threat of impeachment will keep it from ever happening.  

 

 

[Archy1221]

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Donald Trump was exonerated and will not be making Putin-friendly decisions in office. 

This has happened??  Was giving Ukraine Javelin missiles being pro-Putin?  The missiles Obama wouldn’t give.  Downplaying Russia strength in 2012, allowing a Crimea takeover..I guess BHO is pro-Putin 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Donald Trump isn't going to fight the results of the 2020 election

I think it was pretty clear to anyone and everyone that Trump or Biden would have legally challenged the results of an extremely close election, and when those legal challenges lost, both would have left the WH which is what happened.  I know I was told by people on this board, maybe even you that Orange Man Bad wouldn’t leave the WH even if he lost.  

 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

• And if he does, Donald Trump isn't going to do something crazy, like instigate a violent coup

Yeah….if you consider Jan 6 a coup, we are screwed once China and Russia realize how easy it will be to take us over.   Who needs Nukes when you can get 3,000 rag tag citizens to take over Washington.  
 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

• And if he does instigate a violent coup, the Republicans will quickly distance themselves from him. The "election hoax" rhetoric will fade to oblivion and the GOP will return to issues-based campaigning. 

 

• As they distance themselves from Trump, the GOP will embrace saner alternatives, like Ron DeSantis

I certainly got this wrong.   
 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

• Trump's Supreme Court appointees are reasonable folks who made it clear they're fine with the Roe v Wade precedent. Why are you freaking out?

However you feel about abortion…Roe V Wade was not settled in a lawful way.   SCOTUS correctly settled that.   Good on them.  I didn’t think they would have the guts to make the correct and hard decision.  Now it’s rightfully up to Congress to make national abortion law.   Until then, it’s up to the States as it should be when Congress hasn’t regulated it through law.   That’s kinda how our system is set up.  
 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

• The Marjorie Taylor Greene wing will not exert any significant influence on the party itself

First off, you and others constantly said she was the future of the Republican party and a current leader.  That still isn’t true.  Whatever influence you think she has, is confined to about 10 other looney members of Congress who are as looney as her.  Similar to “The Squad” on the other side.  And didn’t Marge get kicked off a committee assignment?  
 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

• Our electoral college system held, and only a worrywort would think red state legislatures might take a lesson from 2020 and reengineer the rules to make it easier to overrule the popular vote.

Fun fact….The President isn’t elected by popular vote.   
 

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

• We remain a nation of laws. It's not like the Supreme Court is going to look America in the eye and say a President is immune from the laws we citizens must follow. That's a dictatorship, man

Here’s another fun fact…The President is immune from some laws us normies must follow, so are Congresspeople.  The question for SCOTUS and what they are deciding  is when does immunity stop.