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 21st September 2021, 04:59 PM   #81
Warbler
Critical Thinker
 
Warbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
For reference, can you quote the section of the US constitution that describes the method of selection, please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:

"and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Last edited by Warbler; 21st September 2021 at 05:06 PM.
Warbler 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 21st September 2021, 05:02 PM   #82
Warbler
Critical Thinker
 
Warbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
How about "Notorious BIG and RGB both DEAD
*sigh* I give up.

Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
It was savvy. Maybe liberals need to stop being rubes and understand the GOP stopped playing around a long time ago.
or maybe both sides need to not be hypocritical. Either it is wrong to appoint a new supreme court justice right before an election or it isn't.


Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Like you wouldn't chuckle if that happened. I might stop laughing long enough to dance.
chuckle? if Trump shot one or more supreme court justice? no, I don't think I would chuckle at that.
Warbler 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 21st September 2021, 05:37 PM   #83
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,825
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This makes no sense. The US has the opposite of a dictatorship. The justices are nominated by the democratically-elected political representatives of the people. If they are not competent to do so, who possibly could be? If they are not the proper authority, then who possibly could be? Riddle me that, kiwis.
They are perfectly competent...at picking political choices that subvert the separation of powers. Just ask 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 21st September 2021, 05:44 PM   #84
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
There. Wasn't so hard, was it.
It is hard to see why someone would want to ignore politics when choosing for a political position. How in the world does that make sense?

I'll leave that point there...

Quote:


I can see some issues with it (like qualifications and experience), so can we improve on this?

For example only:

-- Create a pool of, say, 250 candidate justices who meet certain legal qualifications to fulfill the position and are willing to serve. Those qualifications need to be high and stringent. Perhaps a standing Senate committee to vet candidates? Maybe 5 from each state? If a candidate drops out (or is found out), fill that vacancy. The pool is always filled.
The idea of "high and stringent" qualifications is not a thing unless you are trying to gatekeep the wrong kinds of people, so to speak. If they are members of a bar, then put them in a hat. Else you are going to get into quota systems from different practices and so on.
Quote:

-- Names drawn from a hat (or a lottery or whatever) to select a justice from the pool to fill a vacant bench position whenever it occurs.

-- The full bench is an odd number of justices and fixed. Nine seems to be a minimum. I would suggest 15 is better due to the workload.

-- Each serving justice gets a 5 year term from when they start. If they retire or die or are impeached, the next occupant starts from scratch - no completing someone else's term.

-- A staggered start of this method would generally ensure that the bench changes fairly regularly. So political blocs would be far less likely. The political center of the bench would sway but not swing hard either way like now.

Can I find ways to influence this method to favour one political viewpoint a la Mitch? Sure! But it would be WAY more difficult than present.

As I said, a suggestion.
Again, leaving for now that the whole premise strikes me as mad....

What lawyer who already has a decent practice would agree to be part of any of this? I assume they have to divest from their firms, etc., for a five year gig that will be a pay cut and a whole set of other hassles. A five year thing that will happen some year in the future maybe next maybe not.

Do you really want a guy that is going to have to look for another job soon having unquestioned power?

Do you want the guy with nothing better to do?

There is a good reason for life tenure.
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 21st September 2021, 05:59 PM   #85
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
*sigh* I give up.
Can't top it?
Quote:


or maybe both sides need to not be hypocritical. Either it is wrong to appoint a new supreme court justice right before an election or it isn't.
Awesome. The GOP are hypocrites. They are hypocrites with a durable 6-3 majority on the bench and no qualms about weaponizing it.

What is really important is that the Democrats continue to follow made up rules to their disadvantage. The victims of this age of right wing civil rights rollbacks will just have to understand that fighting dirty to save them would have been wrong.
Quote:





chuckle? if Trump shot one or more supreme court justice? no, I don't think I would chuckle at that.
I'd also come up sick jokes. I get giddy when vulnerable populations are in less danger.
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 21st September 2021, 06:02 PM   #86
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,825
There's a simpler way, and the Dems need to take it. Push up the number of justices to whatever is necessary to install a basic balanced court again. All legal.

"But...1869!!" Screw that, here's the new rules.
__________________
...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 21st September 2021, 06:18 PM   #87
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
There's a simpler way, and the Dems need to take it. Push up the number of justices to whatever is necessary to install a basic balanced court again. All legal.

"But...1869!!" Screw that, here's the new rules.
Nah. Push through enough to dominate the court. Not balance it. They do that. Then they uphold new voting rights laws (including eliminating gerrymandering) plus full DC statehood and the chances of the Trumpist GOP regaining power with a minority of the vote will be zero.

The GOP will rise again, just one that would have to actually try for a majority rather than manipulate things to allow them to rule in the minority. Which means angry racists are a liability, not a strength.

Which seems like a good thing.
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 21st September 2021, 09:49 PM   #88
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,018
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
It is hard to see why someone would want to ignore politics when choosing for a political position. How in the world does that make sense?.
It's the highlighted premise that is being questioned.

This is how we do it in the UK:

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-j...ind/jud-appts/


Quote:
Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

Before this appointments were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who was a Government Minister. The Lord Chancellor’s Department made its own enquiries as to the most eligible candidates. It was considered that the appointment process was open to the criticism that a member of the government should not have the sole responsibility for appointing judges. It was also considered that judges were appointed in the image of existing judges rather than solely on merit from a pool of widely drawn eligible candidates.

Despite the criticisms levelled at it the former method of appointment in fact worked rather well. Candidates were selected on merit, there was no question of any political consideration being involved, and the Lord Chancellor usually acted on the advice of the senior judiciary, who were in a position to identify able practitioners. Selection was, however as critics pointed out, from a rather narrow pool and this did nothing for the diversity of the judiciary.

It was considered that, while judges should be appointed on merit, if we are to have a judiciary that has the confidence of citizens, it must fairly reflect all sections of society that are in a position to provide candidates of the requisite ability. The new system of selection seeks to encourage such candidates to come forward. All appointments are made by open competition. The Commission recommends candidates to the Lord Chancellor, who has a very limited power of veto. The Commission also has a specific statutory duty to “encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for appointments”. In this way it seeks to widen the pool of candidates who are then appointed on merit. There are judges on the Judicial Appointments Commission, but they are not in the majority, do not act in a representative capacity, and the Commission is chaired by a layperson.
ETA: in 2019 our current PM prorogued Parliament. It was the non political supreme court that ruled his action illegal and forced him to recall it.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Pixel42; 21st September 2021 at 09:57 PM.
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 22nd September 2021, 12:01 AM   #89
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
There's a simpler way, and the Dems need to take it. Push up the number of justices to whatever is necessary to install a basic balanced court again. All legal.

"But...1869!!" Screw that, here's the new rules.
Rarely discussed, but also well within the realm of possibility and maybe more defensible would be to expand the House of Representatives. It was set at 435 members in 1911, when the U.S. population was roughly 94 million and before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted. Adding another 120 or so Representatives would make the body more, well, representative, and reduce the power of the small-state electors in presidential elections. Maybe the expansion could accompany the admission of D.C. and Puerto Rico to the union and a new anti-gerrymandering law.

Last edited by Bob001; 22nd September 2021 at 12:04 AM.
Bob001 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 22nd September 2021, 04:06 AM   #90
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
It's the highlighted premise that is being questioned.
It isn't. That the US court serves a political function is well established. Judicial review of legislative acts have played a massive role in our history.

People seem to think that this is a matter of people and not the institution.
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 22nd September 2021, 05:17 AM   #91
ZiprHead
Critical Thinker
 
ZiprHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sag-Nasty
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
There's a simpler way, and the Dems need to take it. Push up the number of justices to whatever is necessary to install a basic balanced court again. All legal.

"But...1869!!" Screw that, here's the new rules.
It is legal, and you know the repugs would do it in a heartbeat if the shoe were on the other foot.
__________________
When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.
ZiprHead 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 22nd September 2021, 07:02 AM   #92
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,109
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Rarely discussed, but also well within the realm of possibility and maybe more defensible would be to expand the House of Representatives. It was set at 435 members in 1911, when the U.S. population was roughly 94 million and before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted. Adding another 120 or so Representatives would make the body more, well, representative, and reduce the power of the small-state electors in presidential elections. Maybe the expansion could accompany the admission of D.C. and Puerto Rico to the union and a new anti-gerrymandering law.
Me likey
__________________
“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 22nd September 2021, 08:10 AM   #93
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,551
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Rarely discussed, but also well within the realm of possibility and maybe more defensible would be to expand the House of Representatives. It was set at 435 members in 1911, when the U.S. population was roughly 94 million and before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted. Adding another 120 or so Representatives would make the body more, well, representative, and reduce the power of the small-state electors in presidential elections. Maybe the expansion could accompany the admission of D.C. and Puerto Rico to the union and a new anti-gerrymandering law.
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Me likey
Seconded, especially the last sentence.
__________________
"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 22nd September 2021, 09:03 AM   #94
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 10,481
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Me likey
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Seconded, especially the last sentence.
It would require higher taxes which would be a tough sell. Someone's gotta pay those politicians.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 22nd September 2021, 09:49 AM   #95
lobosrul5
Master Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,559
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.
I'm an American who follows UK politics somewhat.

Back when Peter Cook was still alive (OK about his last decade of life that was changing) the Democrats and Republicans were truly like coke and pepsi. Not a huge difference between them... ie Nixon created the EPA, Carter deregulated the airline industry. FAR less of a difference than Labour v Torries in the 1960's or 70's.

Theresa May would fit in the Democratic party well, Boris I can't see. Most Republicans, especially in the House, wouldn't be welcome in the Conservative party... hell most of them are publicly too extreme for UKIP, that said if they kept their crazy to themselves they might fit in there.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 22nd September 2021 at 09:51 AM.
lobosrul5 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 22nd September 2021, 12:46 PM   #96
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
It would require higher taxes which would be a tough sell. Someone's gotta pay those politicians.
It would be couch change compared to the defense budget.
Bob001 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 22nd September 2021, 01:09 PM   #97
Warbler
Critical Thinker
 
Warbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Awesome. The GOP are hypocrites. They are hypocrites with a durable 6-3 majority on the bench and no qualms about weaponizing it.
As if the dems wouldn't do the same if they had a 6-3 majority.

Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
What is really important is that the Democrats continue to follow made up rules to their disadvantage. The victims of this age of right wing civil rights rollbacks will just have to understand that fighting dirty to save them would have been wrong.
I wish both sides followed the rules and didn't fight dirty. Unfortunately, that will never happen.
Warbler 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 22nd September 2021, 01:14 PM   #98
Warbler
Critical Thinker
 
Warbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
There's a simpler way, and the Dems need to take it. Push up the number of justices to whatever is necessary to install a basic balanced court again. All legal.

"But...1869!!" Screw that, here's the new rules.
that could set a bad precedent of the whenever the majority in the senate and the Presidency switches parties, of adding more Supreme Court justices so the court favors the party in control. Not good.

I think it is worthy considering making a constitutional amendment fixing the size of the Supreme Court.
Warbler 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 22nd September 2021, 03:31 PM   #99
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 10,825
Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
that could set a bad precedent of the whenever the majority in the senate and the Presidency switches parties, of adding more Supreme Court justices so the court favors the party in control. Not good.
Given their failure to adhere to previous norms re populating the SCOTUS, do you think the GOP of Turtle Mitch would not stoop to doing that anyway? It's even "perfectly legal". If you want to play by the rules, to win you need to play by ALL the rules.

Quote:
I think it is worthy considering making a constitutional amendment fixing the size of the Supreme Court.
I made that suggestion up above. Actually, if the SCOTUS size is increased, it reduces the chances of it being significantly stacked one way or the other.

For example, with a size of 9, the GOP only needed to find 5 conservative justices and that took them years. If it was, say, 21, they would need to find 11. That's much harder to do in a reasonable time, and therefore less likely to succeed.
__________________
...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 22nd September 2021, 07:17 PM   #100
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
As if the dems wouldn't do the same if they had a 6-3 majority.
.....
Not true. The "dems" don't buy into the kind of reflexive, power-grasping authoritarian mindset that binds all Republicans. The Democrats routinely have serious, responsible debates about policy issues.

Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
....
I wish both sides followed the rules and didn't fight dirty. Unfortunately, that will never happen.
What do you think you mean by "follow the rules?" The Democrats weren't blocking judicial appointments and rushing Supreme Court appoihtments, whichever suited them, and the Democrats have never claimed an election was stolen or encouraged an armed mob to assault the Capitol and overthrow the government.
Bob001 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 22nd September 2021, 08:28 PM   #101
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,109
**** bad precedent
McConnell blew up the filibuster to cram judicial appointments through faster.
But when the Dems want to do it "it sets a bad precedent".

By installing unusually young Judges on the SC, Republicans have captured the Court for decades - unless Dems do something"unprecedented" to balance the steal.
__________________
“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 23rd September 2021, 01:22 PM   #102
Warbler
Critical Thinker
 
Warbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
**** bad precedent
McConnell blew up the filibuster to cram judicial appointments through faster.
But when the Dems want to do it "it sets a bad precedent".
I agree, what McConnell did also set bad precedent.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
By installing unusually young Judges on the SC, Republicans have captured the Court for decades - unless Dems do something"unprecedented" to balance the steal.
unfortunately true.
Warbler 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 23rd September 2021, 01:28 PM   #103
Warbler
Critical Thinker
 
Warbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not true. The "dems" don't buy into the kind of reflexive, power-grasping authoritarian mindset that binds all Republicans. The Democrats routinely have serious, responsible debates about policy issues.
Sure. But I do agree, within the last several years the GOP's behavior has been worse than the Dem's.


Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What do you think you mean by "follow the rules?"
Just that.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The Democrats weren't blocking judicial appointments and rushing Supreme Court appoihtments, whichever suited them, and the Democrats have never claimed an election was stolen or encouraged an armed mob to assault the Capitol and overthrow the government.
I agree, the GOP did those things and that wasn't right.
Warbler 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 23rd September 2021, 01:55 PM   #104
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
**** bad precedent
McConnell blew up the filibuster to cram judicial appointments through faster.
But when the Dems want to do it "it sets a bad precedent".

By installing unusually young Judges on the SC, Republicans have captured the Court for decades - unless Dems do something"unprecedented" to balance the steal.
...and all of these "unprecedented" things would be in the service of making the government more consistent with the core democratic principle of majority rule.

The Supreme court is at present a pretty drastic result of the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college. Correcting that is totally defensible.

The Senate is inherently anti-democratic both due to apportionment and that it denies the vote to anyone living in a certain urban area. DC statehood is literally the least that can be done. There should be an offer of full statehood to every colonial possession. At this point it would be understandable if they declined, but still...

A law meant to combat voter suppression and end gerrymandering... well... kinda obvious.

The idea that if this is done that the GOP could in the future put us back where we are right now would be silly even if we ignore that making our government more democratic means that will not happen unless they, you know, change to not be a demographic dead end only viable because they game the anti-democratic aspects of the system.
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 30th September 2021, 03:53 AM   #105
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not true. The "dems" don't buy into the kind of reflexive, power-grasping authoritarian mindset that binds all Republicans. The Democrats routinely have serious, responsible debates about policy issues.
Do you really think the Dems would be talking about court packing if they had a 6-3 majority? Seriously? Of course they wouldn't. This idea that one party is so much more virtuous than the other is laughable.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is online now   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 30th September 2021, 07:07 AM   #106
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Do you really think the Dems would be talking about court packing if they had a 6-3 majority? Seriously? Of course they wouldn't. This idea that one party is so much more virtuous than the other is laughable.
The Dems are saddled with the delusion that the court is supposed to be apolitical and they keep appointing centrists who tend to be hopeless academics totally disconnected from reality (but I repeat myself) and people who used to be prosecutors and/or in high dollar law firms. Usually a combination of both.

If they acted like the GOP they'd have to put six of the likes of me on the bench and then you'd have a point, but that isn't ever happening because they are trying way to hard to be really fair.

So yes, when it comes to the courts they are way more virtuous, if you call being naively obsessed with the idea that courts are supposed to be apolitical and all their picks have to go to Harvard and be co-opted into the corporate ruling class a virtue.
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 30th September 2021, 07:13 AM   #107
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
The Dems are saddled with the delusion that the court is supposed to be apolitical and they keep appointing centrists who tend to be hopeless academics totally disconnected from reality (but I repeat myself) and people who used to be prosecutors and/or in high dollar law firms. Usually a combination of both.

If they acted like the GOP they'd have to put six of the likes of me on the bench and then you'd have a point, but that isn't ever happening because they are trying way to hard to be really fair.

So yes, when it comes to the courts they are way more virtuous, if you call being naively obsessed with the idea that courts are supposed to be apolitical and all their picks have to go to Harvard and be co-opted into the corporate ruling class a virtue.
Do you really think the Dems would be talking about court packing if they had a 6-3 majority? Of course not. This shows their intentions. They are not virtuous.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is online now   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 30th September 2021, 07:29 AM   #108
Susheel
Master Poster
 
Susheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 2,413
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Do you really think the Dems would be talking about court packing if they had a 6-3 majority? Of course not. This shows their intentions. They are not virtuous.
So you ask a hypotheical, then you provide your own definite answer based on your own biases, and you arrive at what you think is an unassailable conclusion. BRAVO.
__________________
I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon
Susheel is online now   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 30th September 2021, 07:30 AM   #109
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
Originally Posted by Susheel View Post
So you ask a hypotheical, then you provide your own definite answer based on your own biases, and you arrive at what you think is an unassailable conclusion. BRAVO.
Is this the abridged version?
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is online now   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 30th September 2021, 07:45 AM   #110
Susheel
Master Poster
 
Susheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 2,413
Seeing that your argument was consistently countered over these three pages and your responses have been variations of your initial claim with nothing added...yes, you can consider it the Cliff's Notes.
__________________
I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon
Susheel is online now   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 30th September 2021, 08:01 AM   #111
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
Originally Posted by Susheel View Post
Seeing that your argument was consistently countered over these three pages and your responses have been variations of your initial claim with nothing added...yes, you can consider it the Cliff's Notes.
Verbose, but understood.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is online now   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 30th September 2021, 08:05 AM   #112
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,018
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Do you really think the Dems would be talking about court packing if they had a 6-3 majority?
Do you think the Demcrats would even need to be considering ways in which the court could be rebalanced if the Republicans hadn't unfairly unbalanced it in the most cynical and hypocritical way? Because those are the only circumstances in which anything approaching your hypothetical could currently be the case.
__________________
"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 30th September 2021, 08:32 AM   #113
Warp12
Master Poster
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Do you think the Demcrats would even need to be considering ways in which the court could be rebalanced if the Republicans hadn't unfairly unbalanced it in the most cynical and hypocritical way? Because those are the only circumstances in which anything approaching your hypothetical could currently be the case.
That is one way to not answer the question.
__________________
“The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.” - Confucius
Warp12 is online now   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 30th September 2021, 08:52 AM   #114
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,800
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
**** bad precedent
McConnell blew up the filibuster to cram judicial appointments through faster.
But when the Dems want to do it "it sets a bad precedent".

By installing unusually young Judges on the SC, Republicans have captured the Court for decades - unless Dems do something"unprecedented" to balance the steal.
That was actually done by Harry Reid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...upreme%20Court.

When the Dems did it, it created the exact precedent you now deplore.
Leftus 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 30th September 2021, 10:53 AM   #115
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Do you really think the Dems would be talking about court packing if they had a 6-3 majority? Of course not. This shows their intentions. They are not virtuous.
Of course not, and really only the professionally outraged would care because a 6-3 majority of the kinds of judges Democrats pick would be fine with everyone but the people who think Roberts is a liberal. If it went 7-2 conservatives they'd be labeling as liberal whoever was the swing vote finding unconstitutional the Idaho statute giving the death penalty for criticizing Donald Trump. There is no pleasing these people.


If it was the Democrats winning presidential elections while losing the popular vote they'd be bending over backwards to appoint even more centrist judges. Still, the sorts of people that are mad about Roberts would look at the pro-corporate pro-law enforcement judges and consider them Trotskyites because they wouldn't overturn Roe.

Some may call this the Democratic Party being ethical, but really this is because the Democratic party doesn't really care about the people it is supposed to protect as much as they do about being fair with a bad faith opposition.
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 30th September 2021, 10:59 AM   #116
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post

When the Dems did it, it created the exact precedent you now deplore.
The last four years of the GOP under Trump jamming the courts full of nakedly partisan judges is unprecedented.

Yes, people were smart enough to look to young judges before that and way before Harry Reid. But jamming the whole bench full of Federalist Society true believers is a whole different thing.
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 30th September 2021, 11:46 AM   #117
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,800
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
The last four years of the GOP under Trump jamming the courts full of nakedly partisan judges is unprecedented.

Yes, people were smart enough to look to young judges before that and way before Harry Reid. But jamming the whole bench full of Federalist Society true believers is a whole different thing.
My point was that it wasn't Mitch who made this possible. It was Harry, and he did so knowingly that it would bite him in the ass, he just didn't care as he was planning to retire.
Leftus 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 30th September 2021, 12:09 PM   #118
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
My point was that it wasn't Mitch who made this possible. It was Harry, and he did so knowingly that it would bite him in the ass, he just didn't care as he was planning to retire.

If you think Mitch and the Fed Soc leaders would have ever been thinking that "oh well, we could pack the courts with our guys but, gosh darn it that filibuster thing and our respect for norms that prevent us from removing it," well.... yeah.

The only thing the Democrats did wrong was wait too long to do what they did and then be too slow in filling the massive number of vacancies created because the GOP went full on obstructionist during the Obama administration. Reid got rid of the filibuster but still kept other norms in place, such as vetting, blue slips, etc. and didn't turn the whole process over to some far-left wing legal society to ram through dangerously unqualified ideologues.
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
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 12:32 AM.
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.