• 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

Right here:
Oh and I have nothing against Harrison personally. Never met the guy.
But as a former Democratic National Committee Chair he is all about the Democratic agenda. Many issues, including their key leaders (Pelosi, Schumer) I have no use for.
 
Pops anything in response to my posts earlier responding to your thoughts on expanding the court versus rushing a nominee through?
 
I said I wouldn’t support a senatorial candidate who totally supports the federal democratic platform which as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Harrison does. I do not say I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat under any circumstance. There have been Dems I have voted for locally who I have supported.
 
I said I wouldn’t support a senatorial candidate who totally supports the federal democratic platform which as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Harrison does. I do not say I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat under any circumstance. There have been Dems I have voted for locally who I have supported.

Can I see your notes from this side by side comparison of Harrison's platform and the party platform?
 
“I’d rather just lazily assume what the candidate believes because of a job he had in the past. Quit bothering me”
 
Yes they are cheap shots but not surprising where they came from.

Let's start by you showing everyone where I said anywhere, I wouldn't "vote for a democrat solely because of the D next to their name".

Unlike donnie you don't say the quiet things out loud.
 

For years Republicans have successfully used packing the Supreme Court as an issue to gain votes. However, I think this is an issue that Democrats can now turn in their favor if they're smart enough. Things like term limits have always been popular with the great majority of voters, and once the GOP gets a 6-3 supermajority the percentage of people who want to reform the Court in some way is only going to continue to increase. I saw a poll just a few days ago that showed that more Democrats are saying that the Supreme Court is a motivator for them this year to vote than Republicans. That's the first time that's happened in an election that I've seen. This is one issue that is ripe for the Democrats to turn in their favor if they'll sell it hard enough
 
I'm all in for that plan. It makes sense and moves us away death for political purposes. The only catch is how to stop an obstructionist party from denying the president their nominations.
 
When do we discuss conspiracy theories like Trump killed RBG like the Republicans did when Scalia died?
 
I'm all in for that plan. It makes sense and moves us away death for political purposes. The only catch is how to stop an obstructionist party from denying the president their nominations.

Why not just include in the term limit law that vacancies have to be filled with in 120 days? When parties know that vacancies will be coming open regularly the stakes will be a lot lower wrt to each seat.
 
Why not just include in the term limit law that vacancies have to be filled with in 120 days? When parties know that vacancies will be coming open regularly the stakes will be a lot lower wrt to each seat.

Vacancies have to be filled within 120 days or what? The consequences have to be clear or the Senate could just obstruct.

What if the Senate doesn't confirm? Does the President get to choose whoever they want? Would that encourage the President to name some looney tunes picks that have no chance to run out the clock so they can choose an extremist?

I've been thinking about this for awhile and haven't come up with a good way to force the President and Senate to do this in a timely fashion.
 
Seems like any changes that are done by a law instead of a constitutional amendment would be too easily undone anyway.
 
Seems like any changes that are done by a law instead of a constitutional amendment would be too easily undone anyway.

Once these changes are in place it would be very difficult to undo them, I would think. Look at all the difficulty the Republicans have had in undoing Obamacare. They may finally get it done with this new Supreme Court Justice, but it is likely to cost them in future elections. And it's taken them years and years to do it, including packing the Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority because even a GOP-controlled Congress wouldn't do it. The problem for the GOP is that most Democratic reforms turn out to be rather popular, in spite of their claims, and thus hard to abolish, no matter how much they may want to do so. I would think that undoing term limits - which has been a popular idea even among Republicans - or undoing an expansion of the Court and telling only liberal justices that they're no longer on the Court, would be equally difficult to achieve, albeit not impossible.
 
Last edited:
Once these changes are in place it would be very difficult to undo them, I would think. Look at all the difficulty the Republicans have had in undoing Obamacare. They may finally get it done with this new Supreme Court Justice, but it is likely to cost them in future elections. And it's taken them years and years to do it, including packing the Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority because even a GOP-controlled Congress wouldn't do it. The problem for the GOP is that most Democratic reforms turn out to be rather popular, in spite of their claims, and thus hard to abolish, no matter how much they may want to do so. I would think that undoing term limits - which has been a popular idea even among Republicans - or undoing an expansion of the Court and telling only liberal justices that they're no longer on the Court, would be equally difficult to achieve, albeit not impossible.

I would think stonewalling a moderate nomination to the Supreme Court for a year would be difficult, but here we are.
 
I would think stonewalling a moderate nomination to the Supreme Court for a year would be difficult, but here we are.

True, but the problem I have with trying to add a Constitutional amendment as opposed to just adding or changing the law is that would be virtually impossible to do in the current political climate (and it's ridiculously difficult even in a normal political climate.) Two-thirds of the House and Senate would have to approve, and then 38 out of the 50 state legislatures. So if it comes down to having the ability to expand the Court via congressional law, or trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, the more likely course would be to pass the law. IMO, the Amendment process is also sorely in need of reform, but that's a separate topic.
 
Last edited:
True, but the problem I have with trying to add a Constitutional amendment as opposed to just adding or changing the law is that would be virtually impossible to do in the current political climate (and it's ridiculously difficult even in a normal political climate.) Two-thirds of the House and Senate would have to approve, and then 38 out of the 50 state legislatures. So if it comes down to having the ability to expand the Court via congressional law, or trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, the more likely course would be to pass the law. IMO, the Amendment process is also sorely in need of reform, but that's a separate topic.

Don’t disagree. I would be very skeptical that the constitution will ever be amended again. Not sure what issue would ever possibly get that level of consensus and cooperation.
 
Vacancies have to be filled within 120 days or what? The consequences have to be clear or the Senate could just obstruct.

What if the Senate doesn't confirm? Does the President get to choose whoever they want? Would that encourage the President to name some looney tunes picks that have no chance to run out the clock so they can choose an extremist?

I've been thinking about this for awhile and haven't come up with a good way to force the President and Senate to do this in a timely fashion.

What about a public flogging or something? Like, we pick a citizen at random that gets to beat up a senator until they pick someone. I think with one punch to the face Mitch would back down and hold a hearing on anybody.

But also, I think that if senators know that every two years another seat comes open, the importance of getting an ideologue into any particular vacancy will be greatly reduced. I don't think the right would have freaked out about Scalia's death and blocked Obama's nomination if they knew that Ginsburg's seat was certainly opening in 2 years. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the stakes would be a lot lower for SCOTUS nominations if the vacancies occurred more frequently and predictably.
 
Back
Top