• 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

of course he put it in a foot note. Quiet parts out loud and all that. Just setting the stage to claim the "hanging chad precedent." HCP says they can interfere in presidential elections because that's now settled law. Of course roe v wade isn't settled because... reasons.
 
you gotta be a total asshole to go along with this event at the White House knowing how the last one went. I also don't recall newly appointed justices speaking? Seems like they do their swearing in quietly then get to work.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Click to expand...

Every time they post this shit they're just undermining their own bullshit claims that they didn't pack the court themselves for extremely partisan reasons and by breaking precedents left and right, and in so doing are giving Democrats every excuse to expand the Court themselves - if they actually have the guts to go through with it. I think Republicans have so much contempt for their Democratic opponents that they simply don't believe that Democrats actually have the guts and will to expand the Court. If the Democrats win the Senate and Presidency next week I guess we'll find out.
 
Last edited:
I personally love "Justice" Barrett. Her confirmation is the spark that lights the flames of revolution.
 
Highland Deac said:
Every time they post this shit they're just undermining their own bullshit claims that they didn't pack the court themselves for extremely partisan reasons and by breaking precedents left and right, and in so doing are giving Democrats every excuse to expand the Court themselves - if they actually have the guts to go through with it. I think Republicans have so much contempt for their Democratic opponents that they simply don't believe that Democrats actually have the guts and will to expand the Court. If the Democrats win the Senate and Presidency next week I guess we'll find out.
Click to expand...

 
In principle, I hate expanding the court because I don't like the idea that the court is rendered completely feckless if one party wins the WH and both Houses. But at this point, it's a matter of realizing that the GOP would expand the court in a second if, say, Biden ended up replacing Alito and Thomas, and the pubs regained power afterwards. I'm on board with expanding it to 11 if they agree to some reforms-(such as 20 year terms with one appointment per four year presidential term, for example). They probably won't, so we'd have to go to Option B, expand the court to 13 and admit it's hopelessly broken, and pray the Republicans don't hit the trifecta in our lifetimes.
 
deactherunner said:
In principle, I hate expanding the court because I don't like the idea that the court is rendered completely feckless if one party wins the WH and both Houses. But at this point, it's a matter of realizing that the GOP would expand the court in a second if, say, Biden ended up replacing Alito and Thomas, and the pubs regained power afterwards. I'm on board with expanding it to 11 if they agree to some reforms-(such as 20 year terms with one appointment per four year presidential term, for example). They probably won't, so we'd have to go to Option B, expand the court to 13 and admit it's hopelessly broken, and pray the Republicans don't hit the trifecta in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

My own take is that traditional system for nominating SC justices is simply gone, and it's not coming back, although Republicans would love for Democrats to keep playing by the old rules so they could continue to dominate the judiciary and keep packing the courts whenever they're in power. At this point the Democrats just need to realize that the system for nominating SC justices and lower court federal judges has changed and is now a highly partisan and ideological process, and that if they refuse to compete they're going to see a judicial branch that will block any progressive rulings or legislation coming from the other two branches, likely for decades. Hell, that's already likely given what Trump and McConnell have done over the last four years. Passing a universal healthcare law won't matter if the Supreme Court will simply strike it down as unconstitutional due to "originalism." Worrying about what the GOP might do if they regain power in four years won't help the Democrats to even the odds, at least for the next four years. At some point Democrats are going to have to fight back, because as McConnell made clear in his smug and almost taunting little Senate speech, the GOP just doesn't think the Democrats have the will to stop them. If a bully keeps hitting you, you either eventually hit back or agree to take your beatings.
 
Last edited:
deactherunner said:
Maybe pick one who wouldn't be starting her job at 73?
Click to expand...

deaconson said:
Pretty sure its a joke/jab since they hate her with such sexist passion.
Click to expand...

I mean Chelsea's available. Apparently you can just throw anybody on the Court nowadays.

I'm for adding a new justice within the first year of every Congress. If the Senate does not confirm a President's nominee by December 31 of the first year of that Congress, the President can simply appoint the justice. This is the best compromise I can think of between the WH and Senate. It incentivizes the President to pick someone who could pass so they can get them on as soon as possible. It incentivizes the Senate to confirm so the President doesn't just pick whoever. Each justice under this law gets one 18 year term on SCOTUS and then goes down to a lower court as a justice emeritus. The current nine justices are grandfathered in and not replaced when they retire or die. Let's stop pretending SCOTUS is apolitical and set up a straightforward process for selecting justices that acknowledges it is a political process, but it should not be a chaotic mad dash upon someone's death.

Put that in place and the pressure is simply on Democrats to keep winning elections. I can think of no better fate for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett than to helpless be on the losing end of decades of decisions because Democrats keep winning.
 
Expand the court to 15. You’ll pay the same political price if you expand it all so in for a penny in for a pound. You better make the expansion worth it.
 
My guy

 
LOL - So a black Supreme Court justice ("Uncle Thomas" for those playing at home) swore in a female justice last night.

Yet the dems and the Tunnels posters are upset because somehow this proves racism and sexism???

Call me crazy... but I'm starting to detect a pattern of the left crying out "RACISM" and "SEXISM" every time they don't get their way.
 
Colonel Angus said:
LOL - So a black Supreme Court justice ("Uncle Thomas" for those playing at home) swore in a female justice last night.

Yet the dems and the Tunnels posters are upset because somehow this proves racism and sexism???

Call me crazy... but I'm starting to detect a pattern of the left crying out "RACISM" and "SEXISM" every time they don't get their way.
Click to expand...

I don't think racism or sexism have anything to do with the outrage of her being confirmed
 
BarcaDeac said:
I don't think racism or sexism have anything to do with the outrage of her being confirmed
Click to expand...

Yep, the outrage is over the GOP ramming this through in record time after piously saying four years ago that such a thing shouldn't happen in an election year, and that Merrick Garland wasn't even given a hearing. She also was only named a federal judge in 2017 because McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to confirm an Obama nominee in 2016 (a black woman by the way) and left the spot open long enough for Trump to be elected and fill it with Barrett. Having said that, let's wait and see on the racism and sexism deal - I have a hunch that many of her decisions on the Court may not be so friendly to minorities, including her own gender. There may be good reasons to be outraged about that in just a few months as well.
 
Last edited:
OK - So you agree the Markey tweet was laughable? Glad that's settled.

My suggestion is to focus the outrage on the one individual responsible for setting these wheels into motion... Senator Harry Reid.


ElS5BllX0AIqGOf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top