[Continuation] The Trump Presidency: Part 23 - Page 6

Belz... · 19th June 2020, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Trump Tweets

Why are the Democrats allowed to make fake and fraudulent ads.

"But I want to be able to make fraudulent ads too!"

William Parcher · 19th June 2020, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Glibness is neither an answer nor a defense.

There is no possible answer or defense. I always am whatever you say I am.

Belz... · 19th June 2020, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Why would a liberal judge resign at this point? Remember, unless one of them dies between now and the inauguration (if even that late), there is no opening. A liberal judge is not going to resign knowing that Trump an McConnell would push through a right wing judge. No one can 'sack' a SC judge. There are three things that can create an opening:
1. A judge dies
2. A judge retires/resigns voluntarily
3. A judge is impeached

Trump has zero ability to sack/force to resign a SC judge.

They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.

Regnad Kcin · 19th June 2020, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Plus, when you look at various states, you see even more problems... states like Texas (that he won easily) and Florida are now competitive.

Now, I doubt very much that places like Texas will go for Biden in the next election... but it may force the republicans to spend money an other resources to shore up their base there (which leaves fewer resources for the swing states.)

Doesn’t Trump have the largest war chest in history? If so, I’ll guess no one is worried about resource allocation

Stacyhs · 19th June 2020, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I can however imagine an older conservative jurist resigning. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might be talked into resigning just so they can put in some 40 year old right winger to keep the balance of the court represented by troglodytes for decades to come. As much as the left is afraid of Ginsburg dying the right's nightmare is Trump loses Ginsburg steps aside and Alito and or Thomas kick the bucket.

Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.

William Parcher · 19th June 2020, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

that's not the "only" reason, as the provided link shows.

Here's a fresh headline from Daily Mail...

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

Donald Trump threatens harsh treatment for 'protesters' 'lowlifes' and 'agitators' who want to disrupt his Tulsa rally as city declares 'civil emergency' out of fears of 'extremely violent' protests

Factual Reporting ranked as "Low".

pgwenthold · 19th June 2020, 11:51 AM

I would like to believe that any attempt to nominate and approve a USSC judge at this point would guarantee Mitch McConnell's loss in November. Anyone who would be that blatantly hypocritical certainly needs to be voted out. The question is whether Kentucky would be smart enough to do that is a different question.

Regnad Kcin · 19th June 2020, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I am not denying that Trump's legal team has been less than stellar. (Of course, some of the things they are arguing are so stupid that they would probably lose even if they did have good lawyers.)

My earlier post wasn't about the reason why Trump was losing those cases.

My post was in response to a question about why Trump was bringing up the second amendment after losing court cases on gay rights and DACA. In that case, talking about gun rights seemed like a bit of a non sequitur.... he lost an immigration case, why doesn't he complain about the rulings on immigration rather than the 2nd amendment.

At this stage “your 2A rights” is just one more of his limited-vocabulary verbal tics.

Stacyhs · 19th June 2020, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.

It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now.

Quote:

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

JoeMorgue · 19th June 2020, 12:06 PM

I will wager if we see either part gain a majority in both Houses they will try though.

SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get.

If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.

70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more.

This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 12:31 PM

Another account of how we got here, and a warning:

Quote:

So, five full years into this political disaster there is another mistake Americans could make, at least decent Americans who believe in democracy and liberty rather than autocracy.

The mistake is to assume that Trump is so badly wounded by botching response to the pandemic and his racist response to the Black Lives Matter movement that he is toast. Trump is feral, a wild animal who cannot be domesticated and tamed.

To count him out before the ballots are cast and counted would be a mistake as awful as those of the politics reporters who covered the 2016 campaign.

Be smarter than they were.

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/don...t-yet_partner/

Horatius · 19th June 2020, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Another account of how we got here, and a warning:

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/don...t-yet_partner/

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more.

This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.

There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

The point is we can't be complacent. Some people are already talking about when Biden is President. Like they talked about when Hillary is President. Trump has all the powers of the Presidency, and the support of Repub governors and legislatures in a majority of the states. We can't forget it.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.

You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

But the Judiciary Act of 1869 does.

Quote:

The Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and for the first time included a provision allowing federal judges to retire without losing their salary.[1] This is the most recent legislation altering the size of the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.

Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already made.

Tero · 19th June 2020, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks?

Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.

Stacyhs · 19th June 2020, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many.

Article III
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.

Yes, it does.

It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base.

Quote:

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already demonstrated.

Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.

Stacyhs · 19th June 2020, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tero

I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks?

Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.

I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes, it does.

It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base.

You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it?

I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.

Trebuchet · 19th June 2020, 01:12 PM

FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.

Stacyhs · 19th June 2020, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.

If either declare their intentions of resigning between now and when (if) Biden is elected, it will be pretty damn obvious what is going on. But nothing could be done about it and we know that McConnell would push through any judge toute suite despite the hypocrisy of his actions over Garland. McConnell is nothing if not consistent in his hypocrisy.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.

Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease. People can be selfish without being stupid.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.

I disagree. It went very well for him. He did it as a threat to get legislation passed. It worked.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it?

I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.

You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.

Mojo · 19th June 2020, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease.

Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.

The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.

portlandatheist · 19th June 2020, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser.

There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.

I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.

Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Possibly relevant:

Quote:

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To
.......
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://constitutionus.com/

dudalb · 19th June 2020, 02:08 PM

I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.

Bob001 · 19th June 2020, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.

How will a "major meltdown" look different from his usual rally behavior.

Here's a question: Will the SS agents surrounding him be wearing masks?

acbytesla · 19th June 2020, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Does it now? The law to the best of my knowledge has never been tested. But if you know a case, I'll concede the point.

Segnosaur · 19th June 2020, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016

That's actually very common...

In several polls, the number of people who plan to vote for biden is much higher than the number of people who think Biden will win.

Maybe its a good thing for the Democrats... desperation may drive people to the polls. (As long as it doesn't make them defeatist and decide to stay home.)

Stacyhs · 19th June 2020, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.

Which is what he is already doing. After all, he's achieved more in his 3.5 years
and done more for black people than any president in history!

ETA: and no new healthcare is because of the Dems and Loser McCain.

Segnosaur · 19th June 2020, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get.

If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.

Perhaps Supreme court justices are good "value for the person". There are a couple of problems though;

- To get those supreme court justices, you need to have control of the presidency, and the senate.

- Justices are limited in what they can rule on.... cases must be presented to them (i.e. they can't proactively make rulings.)

- Even a 'friendly' judge may sometimes rule against you, if there is little or no ambiguity in the law. (Witness Gorsuch and the recent gay ruling)

A president may only be in power 4 or 8 years, but in that time they can issue executive orders over a much wider range of areas proactively, and while they may be constrained by law, they can also play a role in changing existing laws.

Belz... · 19th June 2020, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Possibly relevant:

http://constitutionus.com/

The law and the constitution are two things.

19th June 2020, 11:45 AM	#201
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,440	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Trump Tweets Why are the Democrats allowed to make fake and fraudulent ads. "But I want to be able to make fraudulent ads too!"
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

19th June 2020, 11:45 AM	#202
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,762	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Glibness is neither an answer nor a defense. There is no possible answer or defense. I always am whatever you say I am.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

19th June 2020, 11:46 AM	#203
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,440	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Why would a liberal judge resign at this point? Remember, unless one of them dies between now and the inauguration (if even that late), there is no opening. A liberal judge is not going to resign knowing that Trump an McConnell would push through a right wing judge. No one can 'sack' a SC judge. There are three things that can create an opening: 1. A judge dies 2. A judge retires/resigns voluntarily 3. A judge is impeached Trump has zero ability to sack/force to resign a SC judge. They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

19th June 2020, 11:48 AM	#204
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,240	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Plus, when you look at various states, you see even more problems... states like Texas (that he won easily) and Florida are now competitive. Now, I doubt very much that places like Texas will go for Biden in the next election... but it may force the republicans to spend money an other resources to shore up their base there (which leaves fewer resources for the swing states.) Doesn’t Trump have the largest war chest in history? If so, I’ll guess no one is worried about resource allocation
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

19th June 2020, 11:51 AM	#206
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 25,762	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza that's not the "only" reason, as the provided link shows. Here's a fresh headline from Daily Mail... Originally Posted by Daily Mail Donald Trump threatens harsh treatment for 'protesters' 'lowlifes' and 'agitators' who want to disrupt his Tulsa rally as city declares 'civil emergency' out of fears of 'extremely violent' protests Factual Reporting ranked as "Low".
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

19th June 2020, 11:50 AM	#205
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,013	Originally Posted by acbytesla I can however imagine an older conservative jurist resigning. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might be talked into resigning just so they can put in some 40 year old right winger to keep the balance of the court represented by troglodytes for decades to come. As much as the left is afraid of Ginsburg dying the right's nightmare is Trump loses Ginsburg steps aside and Alito and or Thomas kick the bucket. Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office.

19th June 2020, 11:51 AM	#207
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,133	I would like to believe that any attempt to nominate and approve a USSC judge at this point would guarantee Mitch McConnell's loss in November. Anyone who would be that blatantly hypocritical certainly needs to be voted out. The question is whether Kentucky would be smart enough to do that is a different question.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

19th June 2020, 11:54 AM	#208
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,240	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I am not denying that Trump's legal team has been less than stellar. (Of course, some of the things they are arguing are so stupid that they would probably lose even if they did have good lawyers.) My earlier post wasn't about the reason why Trump was losing those cases. My post was in response to a question about why Trump was bringing up the second amendment after losing court cases on gay rights and DACA. In that case, talking about gun rights seemed like a bit of a non sequitur.... he lost an immigration case, why doesn't he complain about the rulings on immigration rather than the 2nd amendment. At this stage “your 2A rights” is just one more of his limited-vocabulary verbal tics.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

19th June 2020, 12:01 PM	#209
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,013	Originally Posted by Belz... They can still nominate new judges as they want. There isn't a set number of supreme court justices. It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now. Quote: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

19th June 2020, 12:06 PM	#210
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,692	I will wager if we see either part gain a majority in both Houses they will try though. SCOTUS Judges are by far your best long term, "value for the person" political power you can get. If you can get... 5 SCOTUS judges on the bench, on your side, under the age of... like 50 or so you've got at least some political power to bring to bear, even if you lose the Presidency or the Legislature Branch, for years to come.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

19th June 2020, 12:31 PM	#211
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Clarence and Alito are 71 and 70 respectively. That's not all that old. I can't see them resigning unless bad health made it necessary. As conservative as they are, I don't think they'd resign just to put younger conservatives into office. 70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more. This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 12:31 PM	#212
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Another account of how we got here, and a warning: Quote: So, five full years into this political disaster there is another mistake Americans could make, at least decent Americans who believe in democracy and liberty rather than autocracy. The mistake is to assume that Trump is so badly wounded by botching response to the pandemic and his racist response to the Black Lives Matter movement that he is toast. Trump is feral, a wild animal who cannot be domesticated and tamed. To count him out before the ballots are cast and counted would be a mistake as awful as those of the politics reporters who covered the 2016 campaign. Be smarter than they were. https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/don...t-yet_partner/

19th June 2020, 12:38 PM	#213
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,028	Originally Posted by Bob001 Another account of how we got here, and a warning: https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/don...t-yet_partner/ Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser. There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

19th June 2020, 12:39 PM	#214
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by acbytesla 70 is past the traditional year for retirement. Nothing shocks me about politics any more. This is the GOP.. You don't think someone will offer them millions to step down? I can see Democratic power brokers doing this and the Republicans are far less ethical than the Dems. There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money.

19th June 2020, 12:40 PM	#215
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Stacyhs It takes Congress to do that. The House would never allow a bill to increase the number of justices through now. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many. Article III The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 12:43 PM	#216
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by Horatius Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser. There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out. The point is we can't be complacent. Some people are already talking about when Biden is President. Like they talked about when Hillary is President. Trump has all the powers of the Presidency, and the support of Repub governors and legislatures in a majority of the states. We can't forget it.

19th June 2020, 12:43 PM	#217
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Bob001 There is no traditional year for retirement. All federal judges are appointed for life. If any of these people cared about money, they would have retired years ago, joined corporate boards and gone on the speaking circuit. People at their level can collect $100K+ at a time. I can imagine the right-wingers leaving to make room for another right-winger, as Kennedy did for his ex-clerk Kavanaugh. But they're not leaving for money. You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 12:47 PM	#218
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by acbytesla This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many. Article III The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members. But the Judiciary Act of 1869 does. Quote: The Judiciary Act of 1869, sometimes called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, a United States statute, provided that the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices, established separate judgeships for the U.S. circuit courts, and for the first time included a provision allowing federal judges to retire without losing their salary.[1] This is the most recent legislation altering the size of the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869

19th June 2020, 12:49 PM	#219
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by acbytesla You're funny. One thing I know about money is that with some people, there can never be enough money. Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already made.
	Last edited by Bob001; 19th June 2020 at 12:58 PM.

19th June 2020, 01:04 PM	#220
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,202	Originally Posted by Horatius Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser. There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out. I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks? Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

19th June 2020, 01:06 PM	#221
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,013	Originally Posted by acbytesla This is debatable. The Constitution doesn't say how many members of the Supreme Court there is to be and some might argue it also doesn't say who decides how many. Article III The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Nowhere does it say Congress decides on the number of members. Yes, it does. It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base. Quote: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates.

19th June 2020, 01:07 PM	#222
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Bob001 Sure, for some people, including Trump. But not for these specific people, as demonstrated by the life choices they have already demonstrated. Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 01:10 PM	#223
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,013	Originally Posted by Tero I can't see anyone who voted Trump turn and change for Biden. But they could lose interest and not show up. The other matter is all the voters that did not show up for Hillary because she was not Obama. How did that work for those folks? Turnout is an unknown factor. Trump voter polling is another. They do not like to give polling info. They would rather type away at websites, hidden only by an ISP number. I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B.

19th June 2020, 01:11 PM	#224
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Yes, it does. It's not debatable that Congress has control over the number of judges and it would take a new act to change the number as I said. The House would never allow an act doing so to pass as long as Trump is president. So Trump can nominate all the judges he wants but unless there is an opening, it means nothing. Trump is just spouting more of his usual crap to his base. You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it? I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 01:12 PM	#225
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 31,059	FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

19th June 2020, 01:14 PM	#226
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,013	Originally Posted by acbytesla Maybe you're right. But they might also think it serves many of their purposes. Thomas has been a Supreme for going on 30 years. Alito, only 14 but Alito served on the third circuit for 16 years. Combine a possible interest in changing chapters in their own life, keeping their own ideology on the court, a chunk of change in their pocket might be enough to persuade them to move on. If either declare their intentions of resigning between now and when (if) Biden is elected, it will be pretty damn obvious what is going on. But nothing could be done about it and we know that McConnell would push through any judge toute suite despite the hypocrisy of his actions over Garland. McConnell is nothing if not consistent in his hypocrisy.

19th June 2020, 01:17 PM	#227
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I absolutely can. Many held their noses and voted for him because of their intense dislike for HRC, not because they liked Trump. Some placed hope in Trump being different and cleaning up the swamp, etc; he didn't. He made it worse. I see a lot of independents changing from T to B. Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease. People can be selfish without being stupid.

19th June 2020, 01:18 PM	#228
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Trebuchet FDR attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court in the 1930's. It did not go well for him, which is why no one has tried since. I disagree. It went very well for him. He did it as a threat to get legislation passed. It worked.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 01:21 PM	#229
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by acbytesla You are reading what a law passed by Congress wrote. It does not constitute an Amendment to what the Constitution has to say. Does it? I'm not arguing what would happen, only an argument that could be made saying the law is irrelevant. You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional.
	Last edited by Bob001; 19th June 2020 at 01:24 PM.

19th June 2020, 01:37 PM	#230
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 33,775	Originally Posted by Bob001 Also, in 2016 Trump was running on his promises. Now he has to run on his record. The coal mines didn't re-open, the factories didn't come back, the farmers are worse off, people are dying of an infectious disease. Yes, but that won’t stop him saying that he has achieved everything he promised, and that it’s somebody else’s fault that he didn’t.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

19th June 2020, 01:39 PM	#231
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,293	Originally Posted by Bob001 You could make the same argument that all laws are irrelevant. But no rational person would make that argument. The Congress passes the laws and appropriates the money, and the courts determine whethe any particular law is constitutional. The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

19th June 2020, 01:46 PM	#232
portlandatheist Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,612	Originally Posted by Horatius Okay, seriously, is there anyone out there who is counting him out? I see a hell of a lot of people claiming he's a shoe-in, even amongst anti-Trumpers, but I can't think of any who've already concluded he's a guaranteed loser. There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out. I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016

19th June 2020, 01:55 PM	#233
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by acbytesla The Constitution says who has what authority and the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court justices. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many or grants Congress the right to decide how many. You're arguing Congress has a right that it does not have. Yet the law has been in effect since 1869. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. Possibly relevant: Quote: Section 8 1: The Congress shall have Power To ....... 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. http://constitutionus.com/

19th June 2020, 02:08 PM	#234
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

19th June 2020, 02:15 PM	#235
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 12,637	Originally Posted by dudalb I am predicitng a major meltdown by Trump at the rally.....even by Trumpian standards. How will a "major meltdown" look different from his usual rally behavior. Here's a question: Will the SS agents surrounding him be wearing masks?