Utopia Talk - Politics - Biden opposes expanding the Court

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 26 22:20:08 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Biden opposes expanding the Court

murder
Member Sat Jun 25 17:20:35
Because of course he is. Sure people's rights are being stripped away, but he's an old white man, so fuck them.

============================================
Biden doesn't agree with expanding top court - White House

President Biden will come under increasing pressure from Democrats to reform - especially to expand - the highest court in the US in the wake of Friday's historic abortion decision.

Biden launched a commission in April 2021 to explore possible reforms, but it avoided taking a position in its final report on so-called "court packing" by adding justices to the current nine on the bench - though it said it there was no legal obstacle in doing so.

Adding more justices to the court could shift the ideological balance of the bench, which currently leans conservative.

On Saturday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre threw cold water on the possibility.

She told journalists travelling with the president to a G7 meeting in Europe that expanding the court "is something that the president does not agree with".

"That is not something that he wants to do."

She said there was "no final decision" she could share on any other proposed reforms, which include possible term limits for justices.

============================================

Also, Joe Biden has never read the US Constitution.

What a fucking moron!

kargen
Member Sat Jun 25 18:33:09
Good to see he got this right.

The term limit idea is beyond stupid. They are already limited to one term that term being life.

Aside from that it would take an amendment to the constitution to make any change to how long justices can serve and that isn't happening ever.

Habebe
Member Sat Jun 25 18:48:13
Pretty sure it will be codified into federal (not constitutional) law next session of congress.

This would set a bad precedent of " I dont like this court, I'll flip the table" that would just escelate to a bavk and forth that would hurt and confuse the country.

In all fairness, how long did the US have far left judges? They can't all bee Gorsuch and Roberts.

Rugian
Member Sat Jun 25 19:15:12
Murder is such a shortsighted asshole that it literally doesn't occur to him that court packing could be done by a Republican president too.

But of course, the end goal for people like murder is to undermine America's institutions so that they can instead enact their agenda through extralegal revolutionary means.

Literal enemies in our ranks.

OsamaIsDaWorstPresid
Member Sat Jun 25 19:49:14
wen biden losis trump shuld add 6 moer justices jsut 2 maek libs cry than maek it so da numbars canet b changid agaih

Dukhat
Member Sat Jun 25 22:51:19
Biden tried to expand it last year and was massively opposed. Why waste time in a losing battle?

You want things to change? Help Dems win elections. Dems need to be a permanent majority party for things to change. Manchin can’t be the deciding vote in the senate. He’s from the most Republican state in the union already and only representing his constituents.

Paramount
Member Sun Jun 26 02:13:20
"You want things to change? Help Dems win elections. Dems need to be a permanent majority party for things to change."

The republicans have been making it harder for typical democrat voters to vote. This is the republicans plan on how they will be the permanent majority party:

Republicans want to make it much harder to vote

http://www...ican-vote-restriction-turnout/

Democracy under attack: how Republicans led the effort to make it harder to vote

http://www...ican-vote-restriction-turnout/

Where Republicans Have Made It Harder To Vote (So Far)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-have-made-it-harder-to-vote-in-11-states-so-far/

Republicans are making it harder to vote. How much will it matter?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/04/opinion/republicans-are-making-it-harder-vote-how-much-will-it-matter/

State Republicans Weigh New Laws Making It Harder To Vote

http://www.npr.org/2021/02/07/964598941/after-record-2020-turnout-state-republicans-weigh-making-it-harder-to-vote?t=1656227051396

Republican Party is waging a nationwide assault on voting rights

http://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/5/3/republican-party-is-waging-a-nationwide-assault-on-voting-rights

In turn, the democrats needs to make it easier for people to vote BUT at the same time make it harder for republican voters to vote. That's how the democrats can become a permanent majority party.

Because if the republicans are doing this, the democrats needs to do this too.

murder
Member Sun Jun 26 07:24:15

"Murder is such a shortsighted asshole that it literally doesn't occur to him that court packing could be done by a Republican president too."

That's already happened. Or did you nap through Republicans ignoring Obama's nominee and then rushing their own nominee onto the court?

murder
Member Sun Jun 26 07:26:03

"Biden tried to expand it last year and was massively opposed. Why waste time in a losing battle?"

Because it's the right thing to do and would allow voters clarity as far as to which members of
Congress want women to be the property of men.

And also who to target.

Rugian
Member Sun Jun 26 07:26:11
Thats not court packing. That's called the Senate having a say in the confirmation process.

murder
Member Sun Jun 26 07:29:03

"You want things to change? Help Dems win elections. Dems need to be a permanent majority party for things to change. Manchin can’t be the deciding vote in the senate. He’s from the most Republican state in the union already and only representing his constituents."

That's right, Democrats need 60 votes. No wait, they've had 60 votes and that wasn't enough to do anything. They need 70 votes to make sure that there are enough Democrats who aren't working for the Republican party.

Surely that can be accomplished by getting out the vote ... in a country where ~ 50% of the population are douchebags.

murder
Member Sun Jun 26 07:29:53

"Thats not court packing. That's called the Senate having a say in the confirmation process."

Well they can have a say again and again and again and again and again and again.

obaminated
Member Sun Jun 26 11:10:26
In several threads murder has shown how short sighted and limited he is. Packing the court works today. It will fuck you up tomorrow. And it will destroy this country next week. You idiot.

Dukhat
Member Sun Jun 26 11:12:10
They had 60 votes for like 11 months before ted oennedy was replaced by some charismatic empty suit. That was during the largest economic crisis since wwii and then republicans used their red state formula to ensure that the whole country would be gerrymandered in 2010 leading to extreme candidates who helped make trump possible.

Im tired of nutsos blaming dems for all people on this. Prove that dems have overwhelming popular support and they will pass the stuff you want. As it is, republicans will just undo everything anyways.

Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member Sun Jun 26 11:12:12
Except when Trump packs it with religious extremists who are stuck there for 40 years, right dude?

They are going after contraception next because condoms are against jesus or some stupid shizz like that

murder
Member Sun Jun 26 12:57:11

"In several threads murder has shown how short sighted and limited he is. Packing the court works today. It will fuck you up tomorrow. And it will destroy this country next week. You idiot."

> 50% of the population has been stripped of their rights and turned into slaves. This country is already destroyed. Fuck tomorrow!

murder
Member Sun Jun 26 12:59:08

"Im tired of nutsos blaming dems for all people on this."

I'm tired of Democrats making excuses for not doing things that they don't want to do.

Seb
Member Sun Jun 26 13:48:04
The republicans have been packing the court for ages; exploiting the procedural role of the senate to ensure positions remain empty until they can be reliably filled by partisan hacks.

Arguing that because this was procedurally correct it is therefore a legitimate exercise of power rather than rigging the system is absurd.

It would be entirely procedurally allowed for Congress to add as many justices as it wants to the supreme court and others.

The argument for not doing so is that somehow that abuse of procedure would be illegitimate whereas republicans abuse of procedure was.

Democrats should just laugh at that.

Rugian
Member Sun Jun 26 13:52:44
Seb
Member Sun Jun 26 13:48:04
"The republicans have been packing the court for ages; exploiting the procedural role of the senate to ensure positions remain empty until they can be reliably filled by partisan hacks."

This is absolute nonsense and, other than Garland*, doesn't even have any remote connection to reality.

Also, it's hilarious to hear accusations of packing coming from the side that already set the precedent for nuking the filibuster for judicial nominees (therefore ensuring that the "hacks" that Seb refers to could be confirmed).

*And guess what? The Senate didn't want Garland, so they said no. That was its prerogative, not "packing."

"The argument for not doing so is that somehow that abuse of procedure would be illegitimate whereas republicans abuse of procedure was."

There was no "abuse of procedure." You guys didn't get a far-left nominee through the Senate. Too bad.

Rugian
Member Sun Jun 26 13:53:33
Also, you're the one who thinks that the Constitution protects abortion, so you probably should just stay out of any discussion regarding the American system of government in general.

RugianLovesTheCock
Member Sun Jun 26 14:30:59
We've asked you for years to do the same, but here we are, Mr. Lost Cause.

Forwyn
Member Sun Jun 26 15:29:59
Crying about the abuse of procedure is missing the point. Review itself as it stands made hyper-partisan courts a guaranteed eventuality.

Sebs think that if everyone were a proper statesman and bureaucrat it would all work out. "If men were angels..."

Rugian
Member Sun Jun 26 17:37:24
Seb has that West Wing mindset where reality itself is skewed by default to liberalism, so whenever the left doesn't get its way on something it must be because the right did something dishonorable.

In Seb's view, conservatives by right shouldn't win at anything ever. Because why would they? Liberalism is the way of the world, while conservatives are just a bunch of obstinate old white men who are relics of a bygone era.

So if God forbid the right DOES win something, whether it be a policy battle or a presidential election or a judicial nomination or a a Brexit vote, it can only be because they cheated. The world is liberal, ergo liberals should be the only ones that ever get their way.

Seb
Member Sun Jun 26 17:49:00
Rugian:

Lol. Like I said, they should laugh at you lot.

Seb
Member Sun Jun 26 17:50:54
Forwyn:

Ah, projection.

There's no absolute defense against people acting in bad faith.

The root cause is the people that tolerate it. Luke you here arguing that it is inevitable.

Fuckwit that you are.

Rugian
Member Sun Jun 26 17:50:58
I know you for who you are bro.

Seb
Member Sun Jun 26 17:54:04
"it must be because the right did something dishonorable."

The right did. Rather than performing a role to assess whether a judge was a fit judge they held up judicial appointments across the board, refused to even table a vote, waited for trump, and railroaded through a bunch of deeply dubious characters who are obviously not high calibre judges but who could be relied upon to take partisan views, and who are now doing so with utterly inconsistent principles ruling to ruling.

That's not an assumption, that's an observation of the facts.

Seb
Member Sun Jun 26 17:54:34
Rugian:

Nah. You don't know shit except your talking points.

Rugian
Member Sun Jun 26 18:13:00
Says the guy who clearly knows jackshit about the American constitutional system of government, outside of what he reads in his leftwing news sources at least.

Lol get the fuck out of here. I'd be legitimately surprised if I found that you hadn't copy-pasted that godawful defense of Rowe you posted here the other day.

RugianLovesTheCock
Member Sun Jun 26 18:17:49
Like your defense? "states rights, and protect the unborns."

Habebe
Member Sun Jun 26 20:24:27
Seb, That was all 100% legal. Its politics, people will "game the system" all the time.

In PA last election and IIRC michigan the DNC had partisan judges kick off the green party from potus ballots. The most ethical? No, legal? Yes. Same goes for their self described shadow campaign to pressure media in favor of their candidate. Still legal.

Habebe
Member Sun Jun 26 20:28:17
As for the partisan right judges. If you look at their voting records the far left judges almost always vote far left, the right moves around alot depending on the case.

But damn are lefties losing they fucking minds. Over a "right" that most will never use and will be far more accessible than in ANY western Euro nation.

Forwyn
Member Sun Jun 26 21:35:20
"Luke you here arguing that it is inevitable."

Of course it is. You have people crying that Mitch "stole" their nomination.

He stole it.

What is there to steal? Is not the seat non-partisan?

Of course it isn't. It is a tool to be wielded in its current format, one of the most lasting legacies that a short-serving President or Senator can leave.

People are only now crying about the reduced legitimacy of the court in the public view. A 5-4 vote instead of 6-3 wouldn't change that. It's all about rooting for your team.

Habebe
Member Sun Jun 26 21:44:14
Forwyn, You almost never see the left attack this on the law. Its all about the policy they want. In which case they control Congress and the WH, if they weren't so unpopular they may be able to get somewhere.

murder
Member Mon Jun 27 05:19:20

"Seb, That was all 100% legal. Its politics, people will "game the system" all the time."

So is doubling the size of the Court and tripling the size of the House. It's all perfectly legal.

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 05:24:25
Murder, Yes, good luck.

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 05:26:48
Your the kid whos teacher allowed snacks and you brought a 3 course meal.

The whole judicial tit for tat started with Obama pushing through judges without the filibuster. How'd that work out?

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 05:26:48
Your the kid whos teacher allowed snacks and you brought a 3 course meal.

The whole judicial tit for tat started with Obama pushing through judges without the filibuster. How'd that work out?

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 05:33:27
Habebe:

I know. I said legitimate. That's different.

There's an old legal figure of abuse of power / office where you use powers for purposes they were not intended for.

The purpose of the senate approval is to prevent the executive stuffing the judiciary with patsies and yes men. It was not because they thought the senate was appropriate body and procedurally correct route to stuff the judiciary with yes men.

It is very clear to anyone watching what has happened here.

The fact it is legal just means you are undermining the social contract by which the people consent to be governed.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 05:34:45
Forwyn:

"What is there to steal? Is not the seat non-partisan"

Exactly, he stole the appointment process in order to nominate a non-partisan seat.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 05:35:25
*a partisan judge to a non-partisan seat.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 05:36:41
Forwyn:

"It is a tool to be wielded"

Then as there's no constitutional limit on judges that can be on the supreme court, and it's a tool to be wielded, how can you possibly object to appointing more judges?

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 05:37:29
Habebe:

"Your the kid whos teacher allowed snacks and you brought a 3 course meal."

You are making up rules on the fly now.

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 05:41:26
Seb , We agree it was a gaming of the system. Both parties involved. It started with the removing of the filibuster for federal judges so Obama could shove through yes men.

Its taken on a life of its own and murder is dumb enough to want to escelate it even more at a time when the Republicans would likely up the ante again come next session.

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 05:42:12
Seb, I was reffering to Murders court packing.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 06:22:36
Habebe:

It was breaking the system fundamentally.

It didn't start with the filibuster - it started when the republican senate decided to make the filibuster so easy to deploy so as to prevent the pretty party from governing when they had the house.

Instead of being a procedurally difficult approach to blocking fundamental issues, it became a tool to effectively prevent anyone governing in the name of forcing a small state agenda.

Its not dumb to escalate at this point.

The republicans stopped believing in the idea of loyal opposition a long time ago. The democrats should go all in. You can't negotiate until both sides understand the purpose of procedural rules are guardrails to maintain losers consent and legitimacy in a democracy.

They should show absolutely no restraint until the republicans do.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 06:24:40
So yeah, they absolutely should pack the courts until such time as the republicans agree to a fresh approach to judicial appointments.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 06:25:01
The democratic party

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 06:28:16
Your insane.

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 06:29:23
Part of me wishes they would, but I prefer not having a totally one.party rule, the Republicans would get really goofy.

Seb
Member Mon Jun 27 07:06:03
No, you are insane - the democrats can't let the republicans walk away with a stacked courts (it's not just the SC), and a culture in the senate that basically says "democrats aren't allowed to govern as we just block everything when they have the house and presidency" while in parallel the republicans continue to try and do everything they can to disenfranchise any demographic they feel they can't get majority support from and rig constituency boundaries to lock in majority of seats from a minority of votes.

They need to keep upping the ante until the republicans stop.

Habebe
Member Mon Jun 27 07:16:47
Which is why every demographic except the white elderly are fleeing democrats.

Minorities are probably the greatest % of the Republican party now than ever.

You seem to be of the impression that the innocent democrats mean well and the mean Republicans just keep screwing them over.

What would the benefit of an attempt to court pack now would do?

Would it overturn Dobbs?

show deleted posts

murder Member	Sat Jun 25 17:20:35 Because of course he is. Sure people's rights are being stripped away, but he's an old white man, so fuck them. ============================================ Biden doesn't agree with expanding top court - White House President Biden will come under increasing pressure from Democrats to reform - especially to expand - the highest court in the US in the wake of Friday's historic abortion decision. Biden launched a commission in April 2021 to explore possible reforms, but it avoided taking a position in its final report on so-called "court packing" by adding justices to the current nine on the bench - though it said it there was no legal obstacle in doing so. Adding more justices to the court could shift the ideological balance of the bench, which currently leans conservative. On Saturday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre threw cold water on the possibility. She told journalists travelling with the president to a G7 meeting in Europe that expanding the court "is something that the president does not agree with". "That is not something that he wants to do." She said there was "no final decision" she could share on any other proposed reforms, which include possible term limits for justices. ============================================ Also, Joe Biden has never read the US Constitution. What a fucking moron!
kargen Member	Sat Jun 25 18:33:09 Good to see he got this right. The term limit idea is beyond stupid. They are already limited to one term that term being life. Aside from that it would take an amendment to the constitution to make any change to how long justices can serve and that isn't happening ever.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 18:48:13 Pretty sure it will be codified into federal (not constitutional) law next session of congress. This would set a bad precedent of " I dont like this court, I'll flip the table" that would just escelate to a bavk and forth that would hurt and confuse the country. In all fairness, how long did the US have far left judges? They can't all bee Gorsuch and Roberts.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 25 19:15:12 Murder is such a shortsighted asshole that it literally doesn't occur to him that court packing could be done by a Republican president too. But of course, the end goal for people like murder is to undermine America's institutions so that they can instead enact their agenda through extralegal revolutionary means. Literal enemies in our ranks.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Jun 25 19:49:14 wen biden losis trump shuld add 6 moer justices jsut 2 maek libs cry than maek it so da numbars canet b changid agaih
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 22:51:19 Biden tried to expand it last year and was massively opposed. Why waste time in a losing battle? You want things to change? Help Dems win elections. Dems need to be a permanent majority party for things to change. Manchin can’t be the deciding vote in the senate. He’s from the most Republican state in the union already and only representing his constituents.
Paramount Member	Sun Jun 26 02:13:20 "You want things to change? Help Dems win elections. Dems need to be a permanent majority party for things to change." The republicans have been making it harder for typical democrat voters to vote. This is the republicans plan on how they will be the permanent majority party: Republicans want to make it much harder to vote http://www...ican-vote-restriction-turnout/ Democracy under attack: how Republicans led the effort to make it harder to vote http://www...ican-vote-restriction-turnout/ Where Republicans Have Made It Harder To Vote (So Far) http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-have-made-it-harder-to-vote-in-11-states-so-far/ Republicans are making it harder to vote. How much will it matter? http://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/04/opinion/republicans-are-making-it-harder-vote-how-much-will-it-matter/ State Republicans Weigh New Laws Making It Harder To Vote http://www.npr.org/2021/02/07/964598941/after-record-2020-turnout-state-republicans-weigh-making-it-harder-to-vote?t=1656227051396 Republican Party is waging a nationwide assault on voting rights http://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/5/3/republican-party-is-waging-a-nationwide-assault-on-voting-rights In turn, the democrats needs to make it easier for people to vote BUT at the same time make it harder for republican voters to vote. That's how the democrats can become a permanent majority party. Because if the republicans are doing this, the democrats needs to do this too.
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 07:24:15 "Murder is such a shortsighted asshole that it literally doesn't occur to him that court packing could be done by a Republican president too." That's already happened. Or did you nap through Republicans ignoring Obama's nominee and then rushing their own nominee onto the court?
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 07:26:03 "Biden tried to expand it last year and was massively opposed. Why waste time in a losing battle?" Because it's the right thing to do and would allow voters clarity as far as to which members of Congress want women to be the property of men. And also who to target.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 07:26:11 Thats not court packing. That's called the Senate having a say in the confirmation process.
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 07:29:03 "You want things to change? Help Dems win elections. Dems need to be a permanent majority party for things to change. Manchin can’t be the deciding vote in the senate. He’s from the most Republican state in the union already and only representing his constituents." That's right, Democrats need 60 votes. No wait, they've had 60 votes and that wasn't enough to do anything. They need 70 votes to make sure that there are enough Democrats who aren't working for the Republican party. Surely that can be accomplished by getting out the vote ... in a country where ~ 50% of the population are douchebags.
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 07:29:53 "Thats not court packing. That's called the Senate having a say in the confirmation process." Well they can have a say again and again and again and again and again and again.
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 26 11:10:26 In several threads murder has shown how short sighted and limited he is. Packing the court works today. It will fuck you up tomorrow. And it will destroy this country next week. You idiot.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jun 26 11:12:10 They had 60 votes for like 11 months before ted oennedy was replaced by some charismatic empty suit. That was during the largest economic crisis since wwii and then republicans used their red state formula to ensure that the whole country would be gerrymandered in 2010 leading to extreme candidates who helped make trump possible. Im tired of nutsos blaming dems for all people on this. Prove that dems have overwhelming popular support and they will pass the stuff you want. As it is, republicans will just undo everything anyways.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jun 26 11:12:12 Except when Trump packs it with religious extremists who are stuck there for 40 years, right dude? They are going after contraception next because condoms are against jesus or some stupid shizz like that
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 12:57:11 "In several threads murder has shown how short sighted and limited he is. Packing the court works today. It will fuck you up tomorrow. And it will destroy this country next week. You idiot." > 50% of the population has been stripped of their rights and turned into slaves. This country is already destroyed. Fuck tomorrow!
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 12:59:08 "Im tired of nutsos blaming dems for all people on this." I'm tired of Democrats making excuses for not doing things that they don't want to do.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 13:48:04 The republicans have been packing the court for ages; exploiting the procedural role of the senate to ensure positions remain empty until they can be reliably filled by partisan hacks. Arguing that because this was procedurally correct it is therefore a legitimate exercise of power rather than rigging the system is absurd. It would be entirely procedurally allowed for Congress to add as many justices as it wants to the supreme court and others. The argument for not doing so is that somehow that abuse of procedure would be illegitimate whereas republicans abuse of procedure was. Democrats should just laugh at that.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 13:52:44 Seb Member Sun Jun 26 13:48:04 "The republicans have been packing the court for ages; exploiting the procedural role of the senate to ensure positions remain empty until they can be reliably filled by partisan hacks." This is absolute nonsense and, other than Garland, doesn't even have any remote connection to reality. Also, it's hilarious to hear accusations of packing coming from the side that already set the precedent for nuking the filibuster for judicial nominees (therefore ensuring that the "hacks" that Seb refers to could be confirmed). And guess what? The Senate didn't want Garland, so they said no. That was its prerogative, not "packing." "The argument for not doing so is that somehow that abuse of procedure would be illegitimate whereas republicans abuse of procedure was." There was no "abuse of procedure." You guys didn't get a far-left nominee through the Senate. Too bad.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 13:53:33 Also, you're the one who thinks that the Constitution protects abortion, so you probably should just stay out of any discussion regarding the American system of government in general.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 14:30:59 We've asked you for years to do the same, but here we are, Mr. Lost Cause.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 15:29:59 Crying about the abuse of procedure is missing the point. Review itself as it stands made hyper-partisan courts a guaranteed eventuality. Sebs think that if everyone were a proper statesman and bureaucrat it would all work out. "If men were angels..."
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 17:37:24 Seb has that West Wing mindset where reality itself is skewed by default to liberalism, so whenever the left doesn't get its way on something it must be because the right did something dishonorable. In Seb's view, conservatives by right shouldn't win at anything ever. Because why would they? Liberalism is the way of the world, while conservatives are just a bunch of obstinate old white men who are relics of a bygone era. So if God forbid the right DOES win something, whether it be a policy battle or a presidential election or a judicial nomination or a a Brexit vote, it can only be because they cheated. The world is liberal, ergo liberals should be the only ones that ever get their way.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 17:49:00 Rugian: Lol. Like I said, they should laugh at you lot.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 17:50:54 Forwyn: Ah, projection. There's no absolute defense against people acting in bad faith. The root cause is the people that tolerate it. Luke you here arguing that it is inevitable. Fuckwit that you are.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 17:50:58 I know you for who you are bro.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 17:54:04 "it must be because the right did something dishonorable." The right did. Rather than performing a role to assess whether a judge was a fit judge they held up judicial appointments across the board, refused to even table a vote, waited for trump, and railroaded through a bunch of deeply dubious characters who are obviously not high calibre judges but who could be relied upon to take partisan views, and who are now doing so with utterly inconsistent principles ruling to ruling. That's not an assumption, that's an observation of the facts.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 26 17:54:34 Rugian: Nah. You don't know shit except your talking points.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 26 18:13:00 Says the guy who clearly knows jackshit about the American constitutional system of government, outside of what he reads in his leftwing news sources at least. Lol get the fuck out of here. I'd be legitimately surprised if I found that you hadn't copy-pasted that godawful defense of Rowe you posted here the other day.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 18:17:49 Like your defense? "states rights, and protect the unborns."
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 20:24:27 Seb, That was all 100% legal. Its politics, people will "game the system" all the time. In PA last election and IIRC michigan the DNC had partisan judges kick off the green party from potus ballots. The most ethical? No, legal? Yes. Same goes for their self described shadow campaign to pressure media in favor of their candidate. Still legal.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 20:28:17 As for the partisan right judges. If you look at their voting records the far left judges almost always vote far left, the right moves around alot depending on the case. But damn are lefties losing they fucking minds. Over a "right" that most will never use and will be far more accessible than in ANY western Euro nation.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 21:35:20 "Luke you here arguing that it is inevitable." Of course it is. You have people crying that Mitch "stole" their nomination. He stole it. What is there to steal? Is not the seat non-partisan? Of course it isn't. It is a tool to be wielded in its current format, one of the most lasting legacies that a short-serving President or Senator can leave. People are only now crying about the reduced legitimacy of the court in the public view. A 5-4 vote instead of 6-3 wouldn't change that. It's all about rooting for your team.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 21:44:14 Forwyn, You almost never see the left attack this on the law. Its all about the policy they want. In which case they control Congress and the WH, if they weren't so unpopular they may be able to get somewhere.
murder Member	Mon Jun 27 05:19:20 "Seb, That was all 100% legal. Its politics, people will "game the system" all the time." So is doubling the size of the Court and tripling the size of the House. It's all perfectly legal.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 05:24:25 Murder, Yes, good luck.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 05:26:48 Your the kid whos teacher allowed snacks and you brought a 3 course meal. The whole judicial tit for tat started with Obama pushing through judges without the filibuster. How'd that work out?
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 05:26:48 Your the kid whos teacher allowed snacks and you brought a 3 course meal. The whole judicial tit for tat started with Obama pushing through judges without the filibuster. How'd that work out?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:33:27 Habebe: I know. I said legitimate. That's different. There's an old legal figure of abuse of power / office where you use powers for purposes they were not intended for. The purpose of the senate approval is to prevent the executive stuffing the judiciary with patsies and yes men. It was not because they thought the senate was appropriate body and procedurally correct route to stuff the judiciary with yes men. It is very clear to anyone watching what has happened here. The fact it is legal just means you are undermining the social contract by which the people consent to be governed.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:34:45 Forwyn: "What is there to steal? Is not the seat non-partisan" Exactly, he stole the appointment process in order to nominate a non-partisan seat.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:35:25 *a partisan judge to a non-partisan seat.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:36:41 Forwyn: "It is a tool to be wielded" Then as there's no constitutional limit on judges that can be on the supreme court, and it's a tool to be wielded, how can you possibly object to appointing more judges?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 05:37:29 Habebe: "Your the kid whos teacher allowed snacks and you brought a 3 course meal." You are making up rules on the fly now.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 05:41:26 Seb , We agree it was a gaming of the system. Both parties involved. It started with the removing of the filibuster for federal judges so Obama could shove through yes men. Its taken on a life of its own and murder is dumb enough to want to escelate it even more at a time when the Republicans would likely up the ante again come next session.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 05:42:12 Seb, I was reffering to Murders court packing.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:22:36 Habebe: It was breaking the system fundamentally. It didn't start with the filibuster - it started when the republican senate decided to make the filibuster so easy to deploy so as to prevent the pretty party from governing when they had the house. Instead of being a procedurally difficult approach to blocking fundamental issues, it became a tool to effectively prevent anyone governing in the name of forcing a small state agenda. Its not dumb to escalate at this point. The republicans stopped believing in the idea of loyal opposition a long time ago. The democrats should go all in. You can't negotiate until both sides understand the purpose of procedural rules are guardrails to maintain losers consent and legitimacy in a democracy. They should show absolutely no restraint until the republicans do.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:24:40 So yeah, they absolutely should pack the courts until such time as the republicans agree to a fresh approach to judicial appointments.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 06:25:01 The democratic party
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:28:16 Your insane.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 06:29:23 Part of me wishes they would, but I prefer not having a totally one.party rule, the Republicans would get really goofy.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 27 07:06:03 No, you are insane - the democrats can't let the republicans walk away with a stacked courts (it's not just the SC), and a culture in the senate that basically says "democrats aren't allowed to govern as we just block everything when they have the house and presidency" while in parallel the republicans continue to try and do everything they can to disenfranchise any demographic they feel they can't get majority support from and rig constituency boundaries to lock in majority of seats from a minority of votes. They need to keep upping the ante until the republicans stop.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 07:16:47 Which is why every demographic except the white elderly are fleeing democrats. Minorities are probably the greatest % of the Republican party now than ever. You seem to be of the impression that the innocent democrats mean well and the mean Republicans just keep screwing them over. What would the benefit of an attempt to court pack now would do? Would it overturn Dobbs?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: