What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

Henry Ford said:
Remember how you thought someone was wishing sexual assault on a poster and that’s not what he meant? Same thing is happening here. 
Click to expand...
How many times does it have to be explained to him?   He was also going after me the other day about something.  Maybe he's upset about Kavanaugh or Brees about to be the all time NFL passing leader or maybe he needs to go take a walk and get some fresh air.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
How many times does it have to be explained to him?   He was also going after me the other day about something.  Maybe he's upset about Kavanaugh or Brees about to be the all time NFL passing leader or maybe he needs to go take a walk and get some fresh air.
Click to expand...
Probably the same number of times it has to be explained to you after you have gone after him multiple times for the incident I just referenced. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Yup.  Same guy. Same kind of misunderstanding. That’s my point. 
Click to expand...
LOL at misunderstanding.  

If there's one thing we should all know about moderation here don't bring up wives and sisters.   Even in a stupid hypothetical that awkwardly came out wrong.  If you want to equate the two to a guy losing his cool about RBG age then so be it.  Have a good one, Hank. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
LOL at misunderstanding.  

If there's one thing we should all know about moderation here don't bring up wives and sisters.   Even in a stupid hypothetical that awkwardly came out wrong.  If you want to equate the two to a guy losing his cool about RBG age then so be it.  Have a good one, Hank. 
Click to expand...
I understand.  It’s very different when someone else should be reading charitably. 

 
FWIW..

As Kavanaugh re-takes oath at White House this evening, worth noting that Sotomayor and Kagan didn't take oaths at White House. Obama wanted it that way as a symbol of their independence, administration officials said at the time.
Click to expand...

 
IvanKaramazov said:
They literally can if they want too. 
Click to expand...
It was tried once, by the most powerful President of the 20th century. FDR got whatever he wanted through Congress because  Democrats had strong majorities in both houses. But a conservative Supreme Court kept throwing out large parts of the New Deal. So Roosevelt proposed adding more justices. For the only time in his Presidency, the Democrats revolted. Nearly half of them joined the Republicans and voted against. It was the biggest repudiation and defeat FDR ever received. 

 
timschochet said:
It was tried once, by the most powerful President of the 20th century. FDR got whatever he wanted through Congress because  Democrats had strong majorities in both houses. But a conservative Supreme Court kept throwing out large parts of the New Deal. So Roosevelt proposed adding more justices. For the only time in his Presidency, the Democrats revolted. Nearly half of them joined the Republicans and voted against. It was the biggest repudiation and defeat FDR ever received. 
Click to expand...
I know.  I wasn't being serious about court-packing.  It's a terrible idea that should not be seriously contemplated.

 
timschochet said:
It was tried once, by the most powerful President of the 20th century. FDR got whatever he wanted through Congress because  Democrats had strong majorities in both houses. But a conservative Supreme Court kept throwing out large parts of the New Deal. So Roosevelt proposed adding more justices. For the only time in his Presidency, the Democrats revolted. Nearly half of them joined the Republicans and voted against. It was the biggest repudiation and defeat FDR ever received. 
Click to expand...
Our government isn't what it used to be Tim.  That should be clear by now :shrug:  

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Let me guess -- Democrats should just accept what happened and not use every legal means at their disposal to retake the seat?
Click to expand...
No, but Court-packing is generally a bad idea. 

What they should do instead is "pack" the institution that guards admission to the Court, with statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would likely add four Democratic Senators. Bonus- it would also add maybe 8 Dem-leaning House members and 7 Dem-leaning electoral college votes (DC already has 3, PR is roughly the size of Connecticut).

Unlike court-packing, the GOP has no obvious counter to this. 

Also unlike court-packing and perhaps even more important that the power grab aspect- it's the right thing to do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Let me guess -- Democrats should just accept what happened and not use every legal means at their disposal to retake the seat?
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand you here. 

Personally I want the Democrats to get control of the Senate and the Presidency and therefore determine who the next SC Justices will be. That’s my solution. Do you have some other remedy in mind? 

 
Even though Kennedy was a swing vote on some issues he was still basically conservative most of the time, right? So Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for Scalia and Kennedy, while it moves the court a little to the right, is still basically a wash, it seems to me. 

Now if RBG were to leave due to ill health in the next two years, then a Trump replacement to that seat would fundamentally change the court...

 
timschochet said:
Even though Kennedy was a swing vote on some issues he was still basically conservative most of the time, right? So Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for Scalia and Kennedy, while it moves the court a little to the right, is still basically a wash, it seems to me. 

Now if RBG were to leave due to ill health in the next two years, then a Trump replacement to that seat would fundamentally change the court...
Click to expand...
Kennedy was the swing vote on some of the higher-profile social issues that court has dealt with -- abortion, affirmative action, and LGBT rights.  Those issues make up a pretty small percentage of the court's caseload, but they occupy a very high percentage of of mindshare among activists.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Kennedy was the swing vote on some of the higher-profile social issues that court has dealt with -- abortion, affirmative action, and LGBT rights.  Those issues make up a pretty small percentage of the court's caseload, but they occupy a very high percentage of of mindshare among activists.
Click to expand...
And again- my argument from a couple of days ago is that on these hot button issues the Court has less power than most people on both sides think. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
South Utah, North Utah, East Utah, West Utah.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
I assume you're joking, but as it turns out the Democrats would probably win North Utah. The GOP edge in many red states actually depends on the rural+suburban areas having enough people to overwhelm and nullify the urban centers. Create an East Nebraska and suddenly a 65/35 GOP state might go from 100% GOP representation to 50/50.

And there's lots of other reasons it would be much tougher than simply passing legislation (and possibly reshaping the District lines in the case of DC).

 
TobiasFunke said:
No, but Court-packing is generally a bad idea. 

What they should do instead is "pack" the institution that guards admission to the Court, with statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would likely add four Democratic Senators. Bonus- it would also add maybe 8 Dem-leaning House members and 7 Dem-leaning electoral college votes (DC already has 3, PR is roughly the size of Connecticut).

Unlike court-packing, the GOP has no obvious counter to this. 

Also unlike court-packing and perhaps even more important that the power grab aspect- it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
I understand the Statehood argument for Puerto Rico and more or less support it.  Frankly I am surprised it has not already occurred.  (I will note that many times when there have been polls or referendums on the island I have been surprised by the rather mixed support for this, though the trend seems to have been, during my life, that the people there have gone from ambivalent to moderately in favor of statehood.)  Myself, I see no good argument for making Washington D.C. a state. (Well maybe one decent argument which could be addressed easily otherwise than by making this city of government administrators and service industry folks a State.)

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I understand the Statehood argument for Puerto Rico and more or less support it.  Frankly I am surprised it has not already occurred.  (I will note that many times when there have been polls or referendums on the island I have been surprised by the rather mixed support for this, though the trend seems to have been, during my life, that the people there have gone from ambivalent to moderately in favor of statehood.)  Myself, I see no good argument for making Washington D.C. a state. (Well maybe one decent argument which could be addressed easily otherwise than by making this city of government administrators and service industry folks a State.)
Click to expand...
Democracy= good? That seems like a pretty solid argument to me :shrug:

Also the "government administrators" live in the suburbs more so than the city. They already have full voting rights.

 
Mr. Ham said:
They want to.  They aren’t quite there yet, where there is no fig leaf at all hiding their lust for absolute power.  
Click to expand...
I don't understand how even the biggest die hard Republicans are okay with this.  That they can't see how this would go horribly wrong. 

 
Sheriff Bart said:
I don't understand how even the biggest die hard Republicans are okay with this.  That they can't see how this would go horribly wrong. 
Click to expand...
You don't see the red side wanting to expand the courts or the Senate.  Those wails have come almost exclusively from the blue side.

 
Sheriff Bart said:
I don't understand how even the biggest die hard Republicans are okay with this.  That they can't see how this would go horribly wrong. 
Click to expand...
To be clear, nobody in the GOP is okay with or advocating court-packing.  This idea resides entirely on the fringes of left -- it's not a mainstream idea among liberals as you can see from some of the posts on the last page.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
8K
John123
J
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top