IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th September 2021, 01:19 PM   #1
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
- The Dead Ginsburg Effect -

As many of you probably know, 9/18 is the one-year anniversary of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

I figured this would be a wonderful time to celebrate and honor her contribution to the GOP and ponder what the future may hold for both parties, after her parting gift.

Of course, you may say, “Ginsburg was hardly a Republican”.

That is true. Ironically, Ginsburg, a champion for women's rights, was nominated for the bench by the serial womanizer and saxophonist, Bill Clinton. However, her greatest life achievement was in her selfish refusal to retire. Apparently, she thought she was going to live forever, or just couldn’t accept the idea of being out of the limelight. Perhaps she was confident that Clinton would win in 2016? Regardless, her vanity and arrogance turned out to be a wonderful blessing for the GOP.

Supposedly, on her death bed, she said, “"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Well as they say, wish in one hand and poop in the other…see which fills up faster.

Republicans did the honorable thing and did not let the court bench sit in tatters. Meanwhile, the butt-hurt Dems whined about Ginsburg, their traitor in death. The exciting result, for everyone, was that yet another Republican ended up on the SCOTUS bench.

So, the question is, how will all of this play out? Will the Dems attempt to twist our Democracy in their favor by packing the court, as threatened? Should they? Will the Republicans be inclined to play the same game further down the line? What other political implications are at play, or have been witnessed, since her incredibly sad passing?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1594...ratic-politics
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 01:25 PM   #2
kevbo
Critical Thinker
 
kevbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rogue Valley, Oregon
Posts: 255
Wow. Even the title of the thread is offensive.

Sorry, I have chores to do. No time to go phishing.
kevbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 01:53 PM   #3
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 30,217
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
However, her greatest life achievement was in her selfish refusal to retire.
Not true.

Given McConnell's unconscionable actions in not allowing Obama to place Garland on the bench, there's no guarantee he wouldn't have done the same if RBG had retired, so your dancing on her grave is plain revolting.

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I am a conservative.
No kidding?

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Should the Dems attempt to pack the court, now? What will be the long-term implications of such a maneuver?
An arms race to see who can make the biggest court to suit their agenda.

The funny part in all of this is the way that Republicans think they've won a great victory, when from the outside, it looks like the beginning of the end. Your society has become increasingly divided which will ultimately spell the end of the Great American Dream.

The world will celebrate that day.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 01:57 PM   #4
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
An arms race to see who can make the biggest court to suit their agenda.

The funny part in all of this is the way that Republicans think they've won a great victory, when from the outside, it looks like the beginning of the end. Your society has become increasingly divided which will ultimately spell the end of the Great American Dream.

The world will celebrate that day.
I recently read an article that basically stated that the political demographic of the SCOTUS has had little impact, historically, on rulings.

Now, of course with such a conservative majority now, I am not sure if that will hold true. As far as the end of the "Great American Dream", well I'd say that time has already passed us by. As far as the world "celebrating that day", not sure what that means.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 02:06 PM   #5
DetectedMotion
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 126
There's something here that is very telling about you. When Republicans have an opportunity to pack the court, they did not hesitate to do so as evidenced by their fast-lane approach to filling those spots..

And you express how much you enjoyed it

The exciting result, for everyone, was that yet another Republican ended up on the SCOTUS bench.

Oh, but if the Democrats merely threaten to do it, the ramifications would be twisting our Democracy by packing the court in their favor.

Will the Dems attempt to twist our Democracy in their favor by packing the court, as threatened?

And then you ask the questions below in a manner to suggest the Republicans could be "inclined" to play a game they have already started years ago.

Should they? Will the Republicans be inclined to play the same game further down the line?

Hate the game, not the Democrats.
DetectedMotion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 02:11 PM   #6
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by DetectedMotion View Post
There's something here that is very telling about you. When Republicans have an opportunity to pack the court, they did not hesitate to do so as evidenced by their fast-lane approach to filling those spots..
"Packing the court" and nominating someone for an existing spot, as is allowed under current law, are two very different things.

Dems pushing for added seats is a whole new ballgame. And, imo, one that will lead to no good in the long term.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 02:16 PM   #7
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,040
Whichever way you look at it the Republicans stole a seat, so if there's any legal way in which the Democrats can correct that they should do so.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 02:20 PM   #8
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Whichever way you look at it the Republicans stole a seat, so if there's any legal way in which the Democrats can correct that they should do so.
Imo, they took what was handed to them. They didn't create new legislation to balance or tip the scale.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius

Last edited by Warp12; 18th September 2021 at 02:32 PM. Reason: clarification
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 02:29 PM   #9
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,424
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
So, do you think Dems should attempt to pack the court? Or are you on the fence about it? Do you have any contribution to the topic raised?
The whole idea of the president nominating judges is stupid, opening the door the nomination of people who are wholly unsuited for the job (Drunky McRapeface for example), and for corruption where judges refuse to recuse themselves when sitting in judgement of cases where they have an interest in the outcome (Amy Coney Barrett).

Judges for higher courts should be nominated by the judiciaries of the courts immediately below them with promotion through the ranks just like any other job. For example, when a seat becomes vacant in any of the 13 Circuit (Appellate) Courts, nominations should only come from within the District Courts below them, and those nominations should be made made by the peers of the nominees, Similarly for a SCOTUS vacancy, the nominee comes from judges in the Appellate courts. The judges at the nominee level would hold an election and choose the judge they want promoted to the next highest bench.

However, since the US is stuck with a terrible system that promotes partisan judgeships, you have to make the best of a bad situation.

If ran the asylum, the first thing I would do is set term limits, so that any stacking would not be forever. It is ridiculous that Supreme Court judges could conceivably sit on the bench for 45 years. Limit the time on the bench to 6 or 9 calendar years from the date of confirmation.

An alternative is to keep the SCOTUS full bench at 9, but have a pool of, say 14 judges from which the 9 can be drawn. There would be conditions on how the pool is established and how the bench of 9 are drawn for any given session

1. The pool of 14 judges must be split evenly between 7 nominees by a Republican president, and 7 nominees by a Democrat president.

2. When a pool judge needs to be replaced upon death, retirement or impeachment, that position can only be filled by a judge nominated by a President of the same party as the outgoing judge. If the other party is in power at the time, the pool remains at 13 until such time as a President of the party that nominated him in power. This would mean the full seated bench is not compromised by vacant seats.

3. The full bench is drawn from the pool at every session. The draw will be on the basis of the pool bias such that the bench for that session will never have more than a 5-4 conservative-nominated or liberal nominated bias.

I fully recognize that none of this will ever happen because that would require politicians to give up the power that having a biased court gives them even when not in government.
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!

Last edited by smartcooky; 18th September 2021 at 02:38 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 02:32 PM   #10
DetectedMotion
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 126
Perhaps Lindsey Graham would like to have a word with you about when it it's favorable for the Republican side.
DetectedMotion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:19 PM   #11
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
"Packing the court" and nominating someone for an existing spot, as is allowed under current law, are two very different things.

Dems pushing for added seats is a whole new ballgame. And, imo, one that will lead to no good in the long term.
It has been done many times before.

You seem scared of the prospect of a balanced court.

Also, I thought you were referring to Alan Ginsberg, and was wondering what the heck you were on about.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:19 PM   #12
Olmstead
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
"Packing the court" and nominating someone for an existing spot, as is allowed under current law, are two very different things.

Dems pushing for added seats is a whole new ballgame. And, imo, one that will lead to no good in the long term.
In the long term it will lead to a better system in which important decisions won't depend on when a person dies.

So, abortions for everyone (not just the rich) in the short-term, better system in the long-term.

Win-win.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:29 PM   #13
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
It has been done many times before.
Quote:
On April 10, 1869, Congress passed an act to amend the judicial system, increasing the number of justices to nine. The law took effect in December 1869
Yeah, happens all the time.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:31 PM   #14
kevbo
Critical Thinker
 
kevbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rogue Valley, Oregon
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The whole idea of the president nominating judges is stupid, opening the door the nomination of people who are wholly unsuited for the job (Drunky McRapeface for example), and for corruption where judges refuse to recuse themselves when sitting in judgement of cases where they have an interest in the outcome (Amy Coney Barrett).

Judges for higher courts should be nominated by the judiciaries of the courts immediately below them with promotion through the ranks just like any other job. For example, when a seat becomes vacant in any of the 13 Circuit (Appellate) Courts, nominations should only come from within the District Courts below them, and those nominations should be made made by the peers of the nominees, Similarly for a SCOTUS vacancy, the nominee comes from judges in the Appellate courts. The judges at the nominee level would hold an election and choose the judge they want promoted to the next highest bench.

However, since the US is stuck with a terrible system that promotes partisan judgeships, you have to make the best of a bad situation.

If ran the asylum, the first thing I would do is set term limits, so that any stacking would not be forever. It is ridiculous that Supreme Court judges could conceivably sit on the bench for 45 years. Limit the time on the bench to 6 or 9 calendar years from the date of confirmation.

An alternative is to keep the SCOTUS full bench at 9, but have a pool of, say 14 judges from which the 9 can be drawn. There would be conditions on how the pool is established and how the bench of 9 are drawn for any given session

1. The pool of 14 judges must be split evenly between 7 nominees by a Republican president, and 7 nominees by a Democrat president.

2. When a pool judge needs to be replaced upon death, retirement or impeachment, that position can only be filled by a judge nominated by a President of the same party as the outgoing judge. If the other party is in power at the time, the pool remains at 13 until such time as a President of the party that nominated him in power. This would mean the full seated bench is not compromised by vacant seats.

3. The full bench is drawn from the pool at every session. The draw will be on the basis of the pool bias such that the bench for that session will never have more than a 5-4 conservative-nominated or liberal nominated bias.

I fully recognize that none of this will ever happen because that would require politicians to give up the power that having a biased court gives them even when not in government.
I find these ideas to be reasonable, and something congress should be discussing. Unfortunately, not going to happen.
kevbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:35 PM   #15
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by kevbo View Post
I find these ideas to be reasonable, and something congress should be discussing. Unfortunately, not going to happen.
Term limits is the most basic, easiest answer, imo.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:48 PM   #16
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,703
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I am a conservative.

In this country conservatives are referred to as “the nasty party”.
__________________
"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
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:50 PM   #17
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
In this country conservatives are referred to as “the nasty party”.
What country might that be? If you don't wish to answer, that is ok.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:50 PM   #18
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 22,408
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
In this country conservatives are referred to as “the nasty party”.
They're referred to mostly as Republicans in this country. Which, since 2016, is synonymous with The Crazy and Delusional Party.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 03:58 PM   #19
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,703
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
They're referred to mostly as Republicans in this country. Which, since 2016, is synonymous with The Crazy and Delusional Party.

As Peter Cook said, you have two parties: the Republican Party, which is a bit like our Conservative party, and the Democratic Party, which is a bit like our Conservative party.
__________________
"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
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 04:33 PM   #20
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
As Peter Cook said, you have two parties: the Republican Party, which is a bit like our Conservative party, and the Democratic Party, which is a bit like our Conservative party.
What do you think about the court-packing issue, or the idea that Republican politicians were somehow uniquely non-virtuous, as has been implied, in this case?
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 04:39 PM   #21
Cat Not Included
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 159
So she was supposed to have forseen the future enough to retire 20 years before her death?
Cat Not Included is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 04:40 PM   #22
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 19,424
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
So, do you think Dems should attempt to pack the court? Or are you on the fence about it? Do you have any contribution to the topic raised?
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The whole idea of the president nominating judges is stupid, opening the door the nomination of people who are wholly unsuited for the job (Drunky McRapeface for example), and for corruption where judges refuse to recuse themselves when sitting in judgement of cases where they have an interest in the outcome (Amy Coney Barrett). <snipped for brevity>
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I would really like to hear your opinion on the court-packing issue. Or any other thoughts about how Ginsburg's death has had a political impact.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Oh, the irony. Any ideas on the court-packing debate that seems to be the main topic at this point?
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
If you aren't going to address the topic, why are you here?
So you asked for opinion on SCOTUS. I gave you a reasoned, detailed answer, which you have rudely, not even bothered to acknowledge or comment on.

It is clear that you are not really interested in anything that others have to say, you are just attention seeking and trolling.

I'm out

/unsubscribed
__________________
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list. This will benefit both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste time talking to you... simples!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 04:42 PM   #23
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So you asked for opinion on SCOTUS. I gave you a reasoned, detailed answer, which you have rudely, not even bothered to acknowledge or comment on.

It is clear that you are not really interested in anything that others have to say, you are just attention seeking and trolling.

I'm out

/unsubscribed

What are you talking about? I did reply. I just didn't quote you.

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Term limits is the most basic, easiest answer, imo.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 04:45 PM   #24
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Cat Not Included View Post
So she was supposed to have forseen the future enough to retire 20 years before her death?
She was dying of cancer, on and off, and asked repeatedly to retire. Not sure what your point is. She could have retired prior to the 2016 election, ensuring a Dem in the seat, but selfishly (or arrogantly) chose not to.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 05:06 PM   #25
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,556
I'd say it's more accurate to call it the Mitch Rule, namely that there are no rules if they aren't enforced, so grab everything that isn't nailed to the floor.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 05:41 PM   #26
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,319
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
She was dying of cancer, on and off, and asked repeatedly to retire. Not sure what your point is. She could have retired prior to the 2016 election, ensuring a Dem in the seat, but selfishly (or arrogantly) chose not to.
She was asked after the 2012 elections because the cancer she had since 1999 had spread to her pancreas.

After the 2014 midterms it was too late, really.

The Republicans acted in cynical self interest as both to the Scalia and Ginsburg seats. None of them meant what they said when they kept the Scalia seat open and none of them meant what they said when they filled the Ginsburg seat, and to suggest otherwise is just nonsense. They took advantage of the situation because they understood what was at stake.

Ginsburg decided she was individually more important than securing what she stood for and as a direct result of her actions the Supreme Court let the Texas abortion law stand 5-4. There is a direct line of blame and you are right that this will ultimately be her legacy.

If she really said on her deathbed that ""My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," well, that is a great example of her inflated sense of her own importance that led us to this, and an example of the sort of naivete that has crippled the Democratic party for the last 51 years.

Her staying on the bench was shamelessly narcissistic. As is Breyer's refusal to step down now.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 06:06 PM   #27
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,319
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The whole idea of the president nominating judges is stupid, opening the door the nomination of people who are wholly unsuited for the job (Drunky McRapeface for example), and for corruption where judges refuse to recuse themselves when sitting in judgement of cases where they have an interest in the outcome (Amy Coney Barrett).

....

I fully recognize that none of this will ever happen because that would require politicians to give up the power that having a biased court gives them even when not in government.
None of this would fix things either without addressing the fact that all of these judges come from the same background that is divorced from the way law affects people's lives.

The simpler solution is the end of the judiciary being the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. It was a bad idea that except for a brief period in the 50s-70s has consistently obstructed progressive reform and aided the rich and powerful. It is OK when these pinheads decide the dimensions of some securities law, but giving them the final say about everything notsomuch.

The "oh no without the judges who will protect us" response this will elicit misses that, again, except for a brief period this body was doing the exact opposition of that and blocking anything that threatened the power of the ruling class. Dred Scott, Plessy, a ton of cases blocking all sorts of reform, upholding the jailing of WW1 opponents, trying to block the New Deal until FDR got nasty, etc.


The US constitution contains an anti-democratic system of government that has only worked at all because of a bunch of unwritten rules and norms that glossed over its flaws. The GOP has ripped those away and there is no real way to go back. Of course, Democrats are in this weird haze of denial that this is happening, and unless they start fighting rather than mourning these norms and shaking their heads sadly and wishing for their own delusional MAGA where the GOP was honorable this is only getting worse.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 06:06 PM   #28
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Her staying on the bench was shamelessly narcissistic. As is Breyer's refusal to step down now.
You would think that people might learn from history, at least recent history.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 06:15 PM   #29
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,319
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
You would think that people might learn from history, at least recent history.
It bugs me that Democrats on the whole will rightfully mock those that continue to deny global warming while themselves being in the same level of denial about the need for radical measures to save American democracy.

Court packing is the only way to do this. Even if they manage to blackmail Manchin into being a Democrat and pass a voting law and universal healthcare this court is going to block all of it.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 06:28 PM   #30
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
It bugs me that Democrats on the whole will rightfully mock those that continue to deny global warming while themselves being in the same level of denial about the need for radical measures to save American democracy.

Court packing is the only way to do this. Even if they manage to blackmail Manchin into being a Democrat and pass a voting law and universal healthcare this court is going to block all of it.
Finally.

The ultimate in hypocrisy, disguised by it's own placidly ironic argument.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius

Last edited by Warp12; 18th September 2021 at 06:35 PM.
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 09:17 PM   #31
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,151
Republicans have packed the Courts whenever they could on the State level.
McConnelly's version was to block Democrat Presidents from nominating anyone when he could block them, and fast-tracking unsuitable candidates (by nuking the filibuster) when a Republican is in the White House.
What other than Court Packing is it when you make sure that you can only have Candidates from one side, but not the other?
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 10:45 PM   #32
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,040
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Whichever way you look at it the Republicans stole a seat, so if there's any legal way in which the Democrats can correct that they should do so.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Imo, they took what was handed to them. They didn't create new legislation to balance or tip the scale.
If it's OK for a sitting President to replace a SCOTUS judge near the end of their term then they stole Obama's pick.

If it's not OK for a sitting President to replace a SCOTUS judge near the end of their term then they stole Biden's pick.

If it's necessary for the Democrats to be maybe a tenth as hypocritical as the Republicans have consistently been to right that wrong, I'm OK with that.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 10:53 PM   #33
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If it's OK for a sitting President to replace a SCOTUS judge near the end of their term then they stole Obama's pick.

If it's not OK for a sitting President to replace a SCOTUS judge near the end of their term then they stole Biden's pick.

If it's necessary for the Democrats to be maybe a tenth as hypocritical as the Republicans have consistently been to right that wrong, I'm OK with that.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2021, 11:27 PM   #34
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,319
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If it's necessary for the Democrats to be maybe a tenth as hypocritical as the Republicans have consistently been to right that wrong, I'm OK with that.
Labeling it hypocrisy is playing their game. The GOP had decided that it will do whatever it takes to keep power at a time when they are becoming demographically inviable and have acted consistent with that. They aren't hypocritical as much as effective.

That they sucked Democrats into believing that there was any principled stance about any of this should be embarrassing. That Democrats think that responding in kind is at all unseemly because of those made up principles is maddening. They so bad want to play nice that they'd rather feel smug than fight.

Democrats are in some weird MAGA mode where the time America was great was the era of bipartisanship where the parties banded together to reach such progressive goals as blasting holes in the social safety net with welfare "reform", destroying US manufacturing jobs with NAFTA, creating more severe penalties for drug use, suffocating the right to a writ of habeas corpus with red tape, and authorizing the creation of a surveillance state

Not to mention enabling the invasion of Iraq.

Why do I support these numbskulls when their fondest desire is to capitulate?

We could have found 1000 exceptionally able women who could have done what Ginsburg did on the court. It didn't have to be her and when she had a disease that usually kills within five years she should have been off the court both because of the risk of being replaced by a conservative, but also to get someone in there who would be able to do more because they aren't terminally ill. The job is what is important. Not her.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 12:24 PM   #35
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,651
The problem with 'normal' packing is it eventually comes back to bite you. That's why I advocate packing the court with everybody. That would be hard to undo.

(Even if Manchin wasn't an obstacle, I realize this is a pipe dream.)
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 02:31 PM   #36
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Yeah, happens all the time.
Quote:
Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the...dicial-branch/

What have you got against a balanced court?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 02:36 PM   #37
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the...dicial-branch/

What have you got against a balanced court?
I don't get your argument. First you said that the number of judges on the bench has been changed many times before. Then I pointed out that it has stood at nine seats since 1869. Now you are just reiterating my point.

It has been sitting at nine seats for 152 years. You'd probably need a really good reason to change the number of seats, other than "we lost this race".
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 04:05 PM   #38
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I don't get your argument. First you said that the number of judges on the bench has been changed many times before. Then I pointed out that it has stood at nine seats since 1869. Now you are just reiterating my point.
Quote:
The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx

And it can still change.

Quote:
It has been sitting at nine seats for 152 years. You'd probably need a really good reason to change the number of seats, other than "we lost this race".
Who is "we"? How about having a balanced court, instead of the biased one as so blatantly installed by Turtle Mitch?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2021, 08:20 PM   #39
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,552
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx

And it can still change.

Who is "we"? How about having a balanced court, instead of the biased one as so blatantly installed by Turtle Mitch?
Perhaps we should immediately institute law which demands "balanced" representation of political views, no matter what they may be, across the board. In the name of "Democracy", of course.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2021, 08:35 PM   #40
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,863
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Perhaps we should immediately institute law which demands "balanced" representation of political views, no matter what they may be, across the board. In the name of "Democracy", of course.
And why would that be so hard?

How about a different process for selecting top-bench judges. Something non-political and not swayable by the politics of the day. Think that can be done?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.