• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

And the DNC rigged the 2016 primary for a corporate shill. That didn't help. And they are doing again in 2020.

Lot of blame to go around.

tenor.gif
 
Bernie didn't lose, y'all. 200,000 dead from COVID-19. The country is burning. Republicans are preparing to strip away our rights. Instead of being mad at the assholes in charge, you all are still salty about 2016. You all are still mad that Bernie didn't win while completely absolving him of the responsibility of losing. Twice.

Undepheated as always. How about Democrats take responsibility for their losses and the consequences of those losses. Conservatives are going to vote for whatever Republican is on the ballot. Democrats actually have to win their voters every election. I’m sorry you don’t think that’s fair or smart, but it’s the truth
 
none of that matters now. they're going to get their justice on the court. vote the assholes out.

I mean it kind of does if you want to actually influence the future of this country. The political ideology of #NeverTrump should hopefully win in November but it is not sustainable long term. Somebody should be planning ahead for 2022/24 and beyond, because the economy is only going to get worse regardless of what happens in November and the next couple of years are going to be a slog.

Playing the short game to win one-off elections is why the Democratic Party is where it is today. The Republicans have been playing the long-game to push back against changing demographics and they are running circles around the Democrats.
 
After some thought on this over the weekend, i have pretty much concluded that the whole argument about whether it is hypocritical or not is beside the point. All politicians are hypocrites, of greater or larger degree. The bottom line is that in some alternative universe where Dems got the Senate in 2018 and impeached Trump and Pence and Pelosi was the president running for reelection against Don Jr. right now, Dems would absolutely no question be ramming through RBG's liberal replacement. The SCOTUS and appeals courts as currently structured are a to the victor go the spoils political tool. Pubs have understood this for a generation; some Dems may have understood it but wanted to pretend not to. The GOP is going to be completely ruthless in filling these seats whenever they can and if Dems want the courts to uphold their legislative priorities, they better learn to play the game better.

If we as a nation want the court to truly be a lofty nonpartisan neutral arbiter (which, given human nature, is probably an impossible goal), the whole system of how we get SCOTUS justices has got to be scrapped and re-done.

This is a good post. Dems should have gotten Ginsbug to retire in 2015. The GOP manufactured GW's first appointment with O'Connor's retirement and they manufacture both of Trumps appointments with a the Garland Fiasco and the Kennedy retirement. The same set of rules do apply to both teams, its just that Dems, don't seem to know what game they are playing.
 
This is a good post. Dems should have gotten Ginsbug to retire in 2015. The GOP manufactured GW's first appointment with O'Connor's retirement and they manufacture both of Trumps appointments with a the Garland Fiasco and the Kennedy retirement. The same set of rules do apply to both teams, its just that Dems, don't seem to know what game they are playing.

Taking Deacon923's post to its ultimate conclusion, when the Presidency and Senate are controlled by opposite parties, are we just to assume that no SCOTUS appointments can be made?
 
This is a good post. Dems should have gotten Ginsbug to retire in 2015. The GOP manufactured GW's first appointment with O'Connor's retirement and they manufacture both of Trumps appointments with a the Garland Fiasco and the Kennedy retirement. The same set of rules do apply to both teams, its just that Dems, don't seem to know what game they are playing.

Before 2015. The GOP took the Senate.
 
How did it come to be that Justice Ginsberg was maintaining the partisan balance of the court, when the majority of judges had been appointed by Republicans?

 
How did it come to be that Justice Ginsberg was maintaining the partisan balance of the court, when the majority of judges had been appointed by Republicans?


Because - shocker - appointed Justices are humans, not robots.

Justice Roberts was appointed by George Bush. Justice Roberts is a fucking terrible "Republican" - he's like an anti-libertarian, socially conservative (on specific lanes) and fiscally liberal.
 
Taking Deacon923's post to its ultimate conclusion, when the Presidency and Senate are controlled by opposite parties, are we just to assume that no SCOTUS appointments can be made?

Well McConell's, whole current argument is that the Senate doesn't have to take up a nomination for the courts in an election year if the senate and the President are from different political parties. So the President get three years to make appointments regardless of who controls the senate, but 4 if the same party rules the senate. My guess is, given McConell's track record, he would change that stance to the full term, given the opportunity, but that is a clear violation of the constitution and there'd be lawsuits.
 
seeing right wingers bitch about Roberts now is so funny since they were fucking creaming their jeans when he was nominated. they loved the guy.
 
Well, the Biden rule, that McConell specifically invoked, was about presidential election year Vacancies.

I said this four years ago and I'll say it again. I don't think we can just assume a GOP Senate would approve a Dem nomination regardless of the timing.
 
I said this four years ago and I'll say it again. I don't think we can just assume a GOP Senate would approve a Dem nomination regardless of the timing.

McConnell hasn't taken up about a million House bills. What's to stop Mitch from just never bringing a confirmation hearing up? It's ludicrous that one person gets to decide what a 100-member legislative body that supposedly represents the entire country gets to deliberate and vote on.
 
I said this four years ago and I'll say it again. I don't think we can just assume a GOP Senate would approve a Dem nomination regardless of the timing.

This is right, I agree. The lesson here is that the Dems would be far better off getting and holding the senate than any other Federal office. It is amazing how much power one guy elected by ~18% of the population of Kentucky holds over America and the World. Once they get the senate, they need to admit PR and DC as States and keep the senate majority in perpetuity. You know the GOP would have made them states by now if they thought it would help them.
 
There was never a chance in hell that the Republicans were going to let a chance to get a supermajority on the SC slip by. Even Republicans who don't like Trump love those right-wing Supreme Court appointments, and of course Trump sees it as his insurance if the election goes to trial. As others have pointed out, the only thing that Democrats can do at this point is to vote them out of office - get them out of the Oval Office and Senate majority - and then start expanding the court and giving them a taste of their own medicine. Short of that this is simply never going to stop. I couldn't believe all the people - including many liberals - who kept hoping that somehow more than a couple of Senate Republicans would actually oppose appointing a right-wing justice as soon as possible. This is what they've been dreaming of for decades - a hard-right (not "center right" as Romney claims) Supreme Court.
 
Even if the Dems take the Senate, will Manchin and Sinema allow us to make a counter move? To expand statehood or pack the court?
 
Even if the Dems take the Senate, will Manchin and Sinema allow us to make a counter move? To expand statehood or pack the court?

Depends on how many seats the Democrats gain. If it's a bare majority of 50-52 seats, it's unlikely that any reforms will happen. If the Dems can get to at least 53 seats then the odds really start to increase.
 
Taking Deacon923's post to its ultimate conclusion, when the Presidency and Senate are controlled by opposite parties, are we just to assume that no SCOTUS appointments can be made?

If we stay on the current trend, this sort of behavior is certainly within the realm of possibility. As others have posted, the way to head this off is to make the Senate more representative so that 50 people elected by a distinct minority of Americans can't hijack the government. There are probably other ways but that is the most immediate.
 
Back
Top