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 SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)

Also:

This article's headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired 'The Handmaid's Tale'. The book's author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.
Click to expand...
- I mean, what are we even talking about here?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I’m a Catholic and I guess you won’t be surprised I’m pretty familiar with the milieu - I mean the actual schools and neighborhoods and social mix here in NO & Old Metry - that Barrett came out of.

But this cuts both ways. Biden wears his Catholicism and his background on his sleeve. He goes to Mass on Sundays when Trump is golfing (and diverting public funds into his private coffers, ie stealing) and rage tweeting, regularly breaking 3 commandments every Sunday. I’d charge it’s Trump supporters who are false on this point, the issue of faithfulness, morality and decency is not in fact a serious value for them.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about Barrett.  DJT isn't really part of the conversation (though I agree he has no standing to pontificate on religious matters at all).

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.
Click to expand...
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions when half the country doesn't even vote.

 
Sinn Fein said:
When they don't vote - their opinions matter a lot less...
Click to expand...
Your statement is still incorrect.

And you're severely underestimating the consequences of Biden and a Democrat Senate stacking the SCOTUS.  Plenty of those voters in the middle would turn back right instantly, IMO.  Threatening to do that to the courts is just as dangerous as anything the libs accuse Trump of.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Your statement is still incorrect.

And you're severely underestimating the consequences of Biden and a Democrat Senate stacking the SCOTUS.  Plenty of those voters in the middle would turn back right instantly, IMO.  Threatening to do that to the courts is just as dangerous as anything the libs accuse Trump of.
Click to expand...
Ok then.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.
Click to expand...
I guess time will tell how stacking the courts will be viewed.

I think it’s one thing to argue for it and add 2.  It’s another to expand yourself into a new majority.  
 

“Trump stole one, so we’re adding 4.”

 
jm192 said:
I guess time will tell how stacking the courts will be viewed.

I think it’s one thing to argue for it and add 2.  It’s another to expand yourself into a new majority.  
 

“Trump stole one, so we’re adding 4.”
Click to expand...
Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.

 
And, of course - you could take the Trump Party approach and add 4 new justices quickly, and then worry about the fallout much later.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.
Click to expand...
The whole reasoning for lifetime appointments was so that the Court would be free from political pressures.  

 
Sinn Fein said:
Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.
Click to expand...
If they add 4 justices, it will be crystal clear it’s to take back the majority.  
 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Sure it is.

Simple Amendment to the constitution.    There have been 27, no reason to expect there will never be another.
Click to expand...
Republicans control the large majority of states. We need assent from three-fourths of them. "Hey Republicans, will you please sign on to the Democrats' court-packing plan?" doesn't seem realistic.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Republicans control the large majority of states. We need assent from three-fourths of them. "Hey Republicans, will you please sign on to the Democrats' court-packing plan?" doesn't seem realistic.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

Carrot and Stick.  Offer something the Trump party wants in the judicial reform bill, and then point out that instead of term-limited nominees, Dems could go ahead with life-time nominees for 4 seats.

 
Sinn Fein said:
:shrug:

Carrot and Stick.  Offer something the Trump party wants in the judicial reform bill, and then point out that instead of term-limited nominees, Dems could go ahead with life-time nominees for 4 seats.
Click to expand...
Agree to the concept.  I use to think politics meant "compromise". Both sides give a little to the other side to get what both sides can live with. But the last couple decades seem to be more about not giving the other side anything so nothing gets done at all. Which leads the POTUS to executive orders or judicial action.  Now it seems politics is just "hipocrosy" and rationalizing positions then and now.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think that is necessarily true.

More Americans have voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in six of the last seven cycles.  This is almost certain to be true again in 2020.

More Americans voted for Democrats in the House in 2018.

Democratic Senators represent far more people than Republican Senators.

The reality is that the majority of the country is Center-Left to Left.

The GOP will be blamed for politicizing the Supreme Court - rightly or wrongly.  Refusing to allow Obama to fill Scalia's seat, and pushing Trump's nominee for Ginsburg's seat will easily win the politicizing argument.

So, if the Dems come into power, and talk about judicial reform, and adding judges to ease workloads, and that includes 4 new justices on the Supreme Court - sure the Trump Party will be angry - but I don't think that necessarily translates into nation-wide backlash.

Trump Party is acting brazen now, because they think there will be no consequences to their naked power grab.  Time will tell if they are correct.
Click to expand...
Wait, you’re claiming that filling an empty seat on SCOTUS is a “naked power grab”, and that adding 4 additional justices to the court can be slid through under “judicial reform”?

Wow.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Well - clearly you have to massage the message.

But, the message for judicial reform is there to be taken.

And, if the only thing you do is add 4 new justices, sure some might be cynical.  But if you include other measures, like a term-limit for justices - allowing for the lifetime appointment of existing justices, but future justices limited to a 20-year term (or 10 or 15).  Then you start to depoliticize the court - its not a game about when someone dies.

And, you don't add 4 to take the majority - you add 4 so that each justice has oversight over a single judicial district - other than the Chief Justice.

You might also split the 9th circuit as part of the reforms - so that a more moderate district exists on the west coast (and which would put the Chief Justice on oversight duty on the DC circuit).

And, maybe you look at terms for lower court Judges as well.  In addition to making sure each district and circuit is fully staffed to ensure expeditious court outcomes.

The judiciary is in need of both an overhaul, and a return to neutrality.  We should not be reading political cases - just to see who appointed the judge in charge.  We should have faith that the judiciary is above partisan politics.
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:    The entire idea of adding more justices is partisan politics

 
The Future Champs said:
Wait, you’re claiming that filling an empty seat on SCOTUS is a “naked power grab”, and that adding 4 additional justices to the court can be slid through under “judicial reform”?

Wow.
Click to expand...
Well, lets at least be intellectually honest here - its the combination of denying Obama the ability to fill a vacancy, while reversing course to allow Trump to fill a vacancy that is the naked power grab.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Glad you find this a laughing matter.
Click to expand...
In 20 years from now there will be 100 justices on the court as each president outstack the previous one.  Do Democrats never realize what the end game is when they articulate stupid ideas?  Somehow all their ideas end up biting them in the #### and it is going to turn the judiciary into a joke.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Well, lets at least be intellectually honest here - its the combination of denying Obama the ability to fill a vacancy, while reversing course to allow Trump to fill a vacancy that is the naked power grab.
Click to expand...
Look, I agree Obama and Garland were unfairly screwed, I despise McConnell for doing so, and I’m definitely voting for Biden.  That said, Biden packs the court, and I’m out.  That would be worse than Trump at his Trumpiest.

 
jon_mx said:
In 20 years from now there will be 100 justices on the court as each president outstack the previous one.  Do Democrats never realize what the end game is when they articulate stupid ideas?  Somehow all their ideas end up biting them in the #### and it is going to turn the judiciary into a joke.  
Click to expand...
Judiciary is already a joke.

:shrug:

 
The Future Champs said:
Look, I agree Obama and Garland were unfairly screwed, I despise McConnell for doing so, and I’m definitely voting for Biden.  That said, Biden packs the court, and I’m out.  That would be worse than Trump at his Trumpiest.
Click to expand...
Sure I get it.

Two wrong don't make a right.

Thats why the Trump Party continues to swing haymakers.  There are no consequences.

 
jon_mx said:
In 20 years from now there will be 100 justices on the court as each president outstack the previous one.  Do Democrats never realize what the end game is when they articulate stupid ideas?  Somehow all their ideas end up biting them in the #### and it is going to turn the judiciary into a joke.  
Click to expand...
Funny thing of all the battles to pick, what has the SCOTUS even done since Trump swung it back to his side that's so bad for the left?   There's all this fear that zOMG abortion will become illegal.  It's never going to happen.  Is anyone even trying to make it illegal other than a few fringe guys?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The election is the consequence.  Not acting just like him and even worse but there are plenty of people on your side just as bad as Trump.   But sides....
Click to expand...
The election, with nothing else, is not "consequence".

Its the ability to use that power to effect a change that is the consequence.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Funny thing of all the battles to pick, what has the SCOTUS even done since Trump swung it back to his side that's so bad for the left?   There's all this fear that zOMG abortion will become illegal.  It's never going to happen.  Is anyone even trying to make it illegal other than a few fringe guys?
Click to expand...
Well, so far, there has not been a real swing - at least not to the right.

Scalia and Kennedy were both appointed by Republican presidents.

Kennedy, over time, was more of a swing vote, but not a liberal vote.

I think what I have observed of the court is that Roberts has taken on that role in many cases.  I think Roberts is legitimately worried about the independence of the SC, both in actuality and appearance.  And, he has tried to balance fairness against conservative/liberal battles.

But, now, by replacing a liberal candidate with a Trump candidate - we will see the first swing right in many years.  (I think the opposite dynamic is what really led McConnell to block Obama - not wanting to see Scalia replaced by a liberal justice.)

 
The Future Champs said:
I hope this election is the consequence.   That’s all I got.
Click to expand...
Sure - but for there to be "consequence" its about losing something.  If the Dems win the election, but can't effectuate any changes towards their positions - then there are no consequences.

Part of the consequences might very well include adding SC justices.  

ANd, I hear people when they say - that will cause the public to turn on the Dems, and then the Trump Party will pack the court even more - which suggests they think its ok for one side to do it, but not the other.   :shrug:

 
Sinn Fein said:
Sure - but for there to be "consequence" its about losing something.  If the Dems win the election, but can't effectuate any changes towards their positions - then there are no consequences.
Click to expand...
This is crazy, GB.

Getting Trump out of office would be really consequential.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Sure - but for there to be "consequence" its about losing something.  If the Dems win the election, but can't effectuate any changes towards their positions - then there are no consequences.

Part of the consequences might very well include adding SC justices.  

ANd, I hear people when they say - that will cause the public to turn on the Dems, and then the Trump Party will pack the court even more - which suggests they think its ok for one side to do it, but not the other.   :shrug:
Click to expand...
This would be SOP, imo.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
This is crazy, GB.

Getting Trump out of office would be really consequential.
Click to expand...
Its a start.  

When you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.

But, if the Dems are serious about their positions - then they have to act to move in that direction and they have to act to preserve those positions.

Again - judicial reform is one of many potential consequences to the election.  But, simply winning, and doing nothing - proves the Trump Party calculation was correct.  It will not deter future similar behavior.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Answered above - but I assume you understand the difference in Trump replacing two GOP-appointed justices, and Trump replacing a liberal justice.
Click to expand...
Tactical error by RBG - she should have given up her seat 6 years ago instead of dying in it.  Hard truth, but there it is.  I'm sure we'll see the same at some point with a GOP appointed justice.

 
jm192 said:
If they add 4 justices, it will be crystal clear it’s to take back the majority.  
 
Click to expand...
"Don't hit us back or it will really be bad" is just an argument for impotence. 

When y'all have power you use it. I dig that about you. 

The political world is a copycat league.  

 
Amy Coney Barrett, when asked in 2016 whether a Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential year, said it's inappropriate to replace a conservative justice with one who would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

🤔

 
Sinn Fein said:
Amy Coney Barrett, when asked in 2016 whether a Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential year, said it's inappropriate to replace a conservative justice with one who would "dramatically flip the balance of power."

🤔
Click to expand...
Yea, but that is only because it was a year that ended in 6 coupled with a democrat in the white house. Totally different circumastances this year

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
617
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top