Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

******Official SCOTUS Thread******

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

I would be extremely confident that Biden's nominee would be approved by a Republican Senate.  

EDIT: I feel more confident that a Republican Senate would confirm a Biden nominee than I would a Democratic Senate confirming Trumps.

Oh, there is no way a Democratic Senate would confirm another Trump nominee.  No doubt about that.

I don't think the Democrats have any reason to trust the Republicans in the future after what is happening now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaz McNulty said:

So you're fairly certain that If Garland's nomination was in December (3 months earlier) and outside of the election year, then McConnell would have approved?

That wasn't the question.  The question was do I think Biden's nomination would be approved.  I do.

To your question, I believe as long as the nomination occurred prior to the start of the Presidential primaries, Garland would have had hearings.  Though I don't feel as strongly about his confirmation because the 2014 mid-term elections flipped control of the process to the Republicans which was a clear indication that the American people wanted Obama checked.  You see McConnell's statement was a two prong test.  Lame-duck President AND opposing party in the Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Even by this standard the argument fails.  The latest election was a rejection of priorities and policies as evidence in the flipping of the House.  I'm assuming his evidence of "rejected priorities and policies" was the flipping of the Senate.  There's really no way to spin out of the hypocrisy on this ESPECIALLY when McConnell comes out of the gate at the very beginning telling the world he has no interest in working with Obama.  So it goes back to either being full of it then or full of it now.

ETA:  And none of this addresses the fact that a myriad of GOP senators had to have also "mis-understood" him.

The House is irrelevant.  The House votes are too locale specific.  The Senate votes are statewide.  Also, since the Senate controls the confirmation process, when it comes to this topic is the election that is relevant.  

Also, which GOP Senators misunderstood?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

My guess is that if the democrats were to put forward any kind of legislation to expand the court it would along the lines of what @Sinn Feinhas been promoting except it would do something like add a tenth justice in 2025 and an eleventh in 2029 and twelfth in 2033 and thirteenth in 2037 and split a circuit for a fourteenth in 2041 and get back to odd numbers splitting another in 2045.  They would then beg for bipartisan support and add a bunch of very GOP friendly provisions elsewhere and then when it came up for a vote their would be no such GOP support.  (Even though this entire idea means there is Supreme Court justice on the line for next 6 elections which I think benefits the GOP more than democrats - at least in the beginning.)

But I would need big odds to even contemplate such a watered down version.  Maybe this time is different and the recent Trump and GOP activities were the last straw, but democrats just don't fall in line like republicans to pull something like this off and thus their leadership doesn't try.  If they did Trump would have been impeached at least two additional times by now.   (When the Mueller report came out and practically begged for the House to continue and for emoluments.)    

I generally agree with this.  The Dems are not as cut-throat as the Republicans.  But if the Dems know that things like Obama Care are in jeopardy, or even abortion, I believe they would increase it.  And I think they would add 2 justices immediately.

I believe the last 4 years, coupled with them feeling cheated out of Obama's nominee will motivate them to get down in the dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

The House is irrelevant.  The House votes are too locale specific.  The Senate votes are statewide.  Also, since the Senate controls the confirmation process, when it comes to this topic is the election that is relevant.  

Also, which GOP Senators misunderstood?  

Hard for me to keep track of all the rules, so I think what I am hearing is that "evidence" of "rejection of priorities and policies" are only found in the voting results of the Senate?  Seems like a weird place to draw the line, but ok.  The quotes from the senators including Graham and Cruz are in this very forum for your perusal among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I generally agree with this.  The Dems are not as cut-throat as the Republicans.  But if the Dems know that things like Obama Care are in jeopardy, or even abortion, I believe they would increase it.  And I think they would add 2 justices immediately.

I believe the last 4 years, coupled with them feeling cheated out of Obama's nominee will motivate them to get down in the dirt.

Oh, Dems are just as dirty and cut-throat.  Just not in the same ways.  And that hurts them in pushing stuff through.   Think the ACA and the AHCA.  The ACA was discussed almost to death over about 15 months and then was in doubt through every step of the process.   The AHCA was thrown together and voted on and nearly became law in about 15 days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marsha Blackburn @VoteMarsha

In Chuck Schumer’s America — only atheists can be Supreme Court Justices.

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to see every random Tweet that shows up in your timeline.

I mean, literally the one thing that traditional message boards like this one have going for them is that we have a community of people who (mostly) post intelligent, thoughtful material.  If I wanted to watch some jackass troll people in 180 characters or less, I would just stick to Twitter.  I don't mind when people copy something newsworthy or funny from Twitter, but when that makes up the bulk of your posting history, you are in the wrong corner of the internet.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

We don't need to see every random Tweet that shows up in your timeline.

I mean, literally the one thing that traditional message boards like this one have going for them is that we have a community of people who (mostly) post intelligent, thoughtful material.  If I wanted to watch some jackass troll people in 180 characters or less, I would just stick to Twitter.  I don't mind when people copy something newsworthy or funny from Twitter, but when that makes up the bulk of your posting history, you are in the wrong corner of the internet.

I do find Senator Blackburn's views newsworthy and relevant given the controversy about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. Most of my reposting of tweets are actual news items and things that I could rephrase differently and say that I saw it on CNN, ABC, NBC or (like Tim) things I just heard on the radio. For instance:

Quote

On MSNBC just now, Marsha Blackburn says: "In Chuck Schumer’s America — only atheists can be Supreme Court Justices."

or 

"It has been reported that Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy did not attend the Capitol ceremony to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

If you wish, in the future, instead of posting newsworthy Tweets (like Faust in Shark Pool does) I will just take these news items I am posting with links and pass it off as something that I just heard somewhere without any attribution.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i posted what I really thought about Senator Blackburn, Id get permabanned.  She is an opportunist and nothing more.  She has no business being in congress.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, squistion said:

I do find Senator Blackburn's views newsworthy and relevant given the controversy about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. Most of my reposting of tweets are actual news items and things that I could rephrase differently and say that I saw it on CNN, ABC, NBC or (like Tim) things I just heard on the radio. For instance:

If you wish, in the future, instead of posting newsworthy Tweets (like Faust in Shark Pool does) I will just take these news items I am posting with links and pass it off as something that I just heard somewhere without any attribution.

I think you missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 5:56 PM, IvanKaramazov said:

We don't need to see every random Tweet that shows up in your timeline.

I mean, literally the one thing that traditional message boards like this one have going for them is that we have a community of people who (mostly) post intelligent, thoughtful material.  If I wanted to watch some jackass troll people in 180 characters or less, I would just stick to Twitter.  I don't mind when people copy something newsworthy or funny from Twitter, but when that makes up the bulk of your posting history, you are in the wrong corner of the internet.

The thing I love most about this post from Ivan is the implication that Senator Blackburn is a random Twitter jackass who trolls people instead of posting intelligent, thoughtful material. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

The thing I love most about this post from Ivan is the implication that Senator Blackburn is a random Twitter jackass who trolls people instead of posting intelligent, thoughtful material. 

Unfortunately, that's our modern GOP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a really silly system, imo, that a justice can serve decades non-stop. With the latest nomination, 30 or even 40 years isn't out of the realm.

Really makes no sense to me.

Why not give them something like 10 year terms?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new term got underway this week, once again with lawyers and judges all participating via telephone.  The telephone arguments are available for the public to listen in live.  It makes the oral-argument tea-leaf reader reports much less interesting, as they can't report on the justices demeanor and the like, or tell us which luminaries or celebrities are in attendance at the arguments.  I find it a bit odd they're not doing this via video stream, but I'm sure there is a reason for it.  In Wisconsin, our Supreme Court is conducting oral arguments via video stream, with the judges typically using a court-room themed background and the lawyers usually in their offices.  It struck me as somewhat funny to see long time SCOTUS illustrator Art Lien put out this image of lawyer Ramzi Kassem arguing for the respondents in the religious freedom case (Tanzin v. Tanvir) argued on Tuesday.  I guess Kassem invited Lien into his office for the argument?

It is a bit awkward to have only 8 justices.  Its not necessarily an argument to fill the empty chair sooner rather than later, but it does perhaps give a slight advantage to the respondents in these cases because a 4-4 will result in the underlying decision standing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

but it does perhaps give a slight advantage to the respondents in these cases because a 4-4 will result in the underlying decision standing.

I'm not asking for you or anyone else to research this question, or for you or anyone else to actually know, but just asking "out loud" -  would that be normal?   

Just triggered a thought exercise as to whether or not the Supreme Court taking on a case means it is generally likely to reverse all or some part of a lower courts decision, or if while there was enough of a controversy to give it look more often than not the lower courts had it right?  What makes the question interesting is since I don't really know statistically I think I could be fooled into believing whichever is the wrong answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I'm not asking for you or anyone else to research this question, or for you or anyone else to actually know, but just asking "out loud" -  would that be normal?   

Just triggered a thought exercise as to whether or not the Supreme Court taking on a case means it is generally likely to reverse all or some part of a lower courts decision, or if while there was enough of a controversy to give it look more often than not the lower courts had it right?  What makes the question interesting is since I don't really know statistically I think I could be fooled into believing whichever is the wrong answer.

There's always a ton of speculation as to why the court accepts some cases and declines to hear others.  I'm not sure too much can be read into it.  I don't think you can take any broad conclusions from a decision to accept a case or not.  For example, Justice Breyer rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans in Maine yesterday regarding their ranked voting system.  The GOP in Maine wanted to scrap that system for the upcoming election.  The emergency appeal went to Breyer because that's the geographic region assigned to him.  The applicants wrote a 31 page brief in support of their emergency request. Breyer rejected it with no comment whatsoever.  The applicants can still go through the normal appeal process, but that will obviously take them beyond the election next month.  The only thing we have is an entry in the court's docket "Application (20A57) denied by Justice Breyer."  Many observers would say he determined this case does not present even a close call as to the likely outcome, but there's really no saying why he did it this way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

There's always a ton of speculation as to why the court accepts some cases and declines to hear others.  I'm not sure too much can be read into it.  I don't think you can take any broad conclusions from a decision to accept a case or not.  For example, Justice Breyer rejected an emergency appeal from Republicans in Maine yesterday regarding their ranked voting system.  The GOP in Maine wanted to scrap that system for the upcoming election.  The emergency appeal went to Breyer because that's the geographic region assigned to him.  The applicants wrote a 31 page brief in support of their emergency request. Breyer rejected it with no comment whatsoever.  The applicants can still go through the normal appeal process, but that will obviously take them beyond the election next month.  The only thing we have is an entry in the court's docket "Application (20A57) denied by Justice Breyer."  Many observers would say he determined this case does not present even a close call as to the likely outcome, but there's really no saying why he did it this way.

 

 

For what it is worth I googled and found this (as of 2019 - I think)...

The Supreme Court hears and reaches decisions in 70 to 90 cases each year. Since 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's ruling in 70.1 percent of the cases it has heard (a total of 596 of 850 cases)

It also appears that 2016 had more reversals 78% and 2017 was right at the average.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

For what it is worth I googled and found this (as of 2019 - I think)...

The Supreme Court hears and reaches decisions in 70 to 90 cases each year. Since 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's ruling in 70.1 percent of the cases it has heard (a total of 596 of 850 cases)

It also appears that 2016 had more reversals 78% and 2017 was right at the average.

I posted the "stat pack" from the last term in this thread back in July. There were an unusually small number of cases decided last term - 50 something.  I think the reversal rate was again about 70%, but that gets complicated sometimes when cases are partially reversed, partially affirmed, remanded, dismissed on a standing issue, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I posted the "stat pack" from the last term in this thread back in July. There were an unusually small number of cases decided last term - 50 something.  I think the reversal rate was again about 70%, but that gets complicated sometimes when cases are partially reversed, partially affirmed, remanded, dismissed on a standing issue, etc.

Yep, I know that  70% is not a black and white value but a particular dividing point drawn in the gray areas.  But in the context of 4-4 keeping the lower courts' rulings in place I found it interesting.  

In the context of 4-4 does that make Roberts now pretty much part of the "liberal wing"  (wonder how he'd feel about that?) even if "liberal" means something new now.  I also wonder how Roberts is going to act to protect "his court"'s legacy, his legacy?   Or does he just see the writing on the wall and go with it?

And I know that you will likely remind me that most cases weren't 5-4 down partisan lines to begin with so some of this is just stuff that outsiders look at while normally the court functions without much of this.  But I'm not a lawyer so its the exceptions that get brought to my attention.  And Roberts, at least the mythology around him being super sensitive to his legacy (based on reality or not) is interesting to watch.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I could very well be overlooking something that is not being written about in the media, absent that it is important that the Administration and Trump buddies Oracle lose their rent seeking case against Google that was heard yesterday.   Scary to think that this one might stand (at least in how the media presents it).    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 4-4 votes today, the SCOTUS declined to hear two requests from the GOP in Pennsylvania to review state court rulings that allow counting of absentee ballots arriving shortly after Election Day with no (or illegible) postmark. Alito referred the cases to the full court for review. Roberts joined the liberal wing in the decisions. We only know this because the dissenters chose to make their votes public. One example of a 4-4 tie being a “win” for the respondent pending Barrett joining the bench. 

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1318328591848034304/photo/1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Court is hearing oral argument in California v. Texas at 10:00 eastern this morning.  In this case, the Trump administration together with 18 Republican state attorney generals are asking the Court to abolish the Affordable Care Act and eliminate health insurance currently in place for over 20 million people.

You can listen in here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471185-1/health-care-law-supreme-court-oral-argument

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 11:24 PM, sho nuff said:

If i posted what I really thought about Senator Blackburn, Id get permabanned.  She is an opportunist and nothing more.  She has no business being in congress.

Sad thing is that descibes many in congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The Court is hearing oral argument in California v. Texas at 10:00 eastern this morning.  In this case, the Trump administration together with 18 Republican state attorney generals are asking the Court to abolish the Affordable Care Act and eliminate health insurance currently in place for over 20 million people.

You can listen in here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471185-1/health-care-law-supreme-court-oral-argument

 

Early sparring on the standing issue - Roberts, Breyer, Thomas, Alito, Soto all asking about standing during the California AG's argument.  Alito suggests a hook - through Medicaid costs.  In the guise of questioning, Sotomayor responds - they can challenge the Medicaid provisions, not throw the whole thing out.  That will likely lead them to the main issue in this case - severability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The Court is hearing oral argument in California v. Texas at 10:00 eastern this morning.  In this case, the Trump administration together with 18 Republican state attorney generals are asking the Court to abolish the Affordable Care Act and eliminate health insurance currently in place for over 20 million people.

You can listen in here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471185-1/health-care-law-supreme-court-oral-argument

 

Early sparring on the standing issue - Roberts, Breyer, Thomas, Alito, Soto all asking about standing during the California AG's argument.  Alito suggests a hook - through Medicaid costs.  In the guise of questioning, Sotomayor responds - they can challenge the Medicaid provisions, not throw the whole thing out.  That will likely lead them to the main issue in this case - severability.

I don't listen to oral arguments ever, but Breyer sounds kinda pissed at the Texas Solicitor General. Maybe that's his normal demeanor. 

Edited by FBG26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FBG26 said:

I don't listen to oral arguments ever, but Breyer sounds kinda pissed at the Texas Solicitor General. Maybe that's his normal demeanor. 

I had to take a call and missed that but saw a guy on twitter calling him "animated."

Roberts and Kavanaugh I think signaled pretty strongly that they think the mandate can be severed from the ACA.  Assuming they don't kick it on standing, the likely result seems to be the individual mandate is stricken, but the ACA is otherwise saved.  Of course, this is just reading the tea leaves.  We were all told years ago the ACA could not survive without the mandate, and that make sense to me, so its not necessarily a good result either way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Roberts and Kavanaugh I think signaled pretty strongly that they think the mandate can be severed from the ACA.  Assuming they don't kick it on standing, the likely result seems to be the individual mandate is stricken, but the ACA is otherwise saved.  Of course, this is just reading the tea leaves.  We were all told years ago the ACA could not survive without the mandate, and that make sense to me, so its not necessarily a good result either way.

If I was to predict based solely on oral arguments, I'd agree with the bolded. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I had to take a call and missed that but saw a guy on twitter calling him "animated."

Roberts and Kavanaugh I think signaled pretty strongly that they think the mandate can be severed from the ACA.  Assuming they don't kick it on standing, the likely result seems to be the individual mandate is stricken, but the ACA is otherwise saved.  Of course, this is just reading the tea leaves.  We were all told years ago the ACA could not survive without the mandate, and that make sense to me, so its not necessarily a good result either way.

 

Didn't the mandate already get repealed? I don't follow this closely enough so I'm a little confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shatner! said:

Didn't the mandate already get repealed? I don't follow this closely enough so I'm a little confused.

The tax provisions were amended to effectively gut the mandate by removing the financial penalty, but the mandate itself is still there.  It just has no teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The tax provisions were amended to effectively gut the mandate by removing the financial penalty, but the mandate itself is still there.  It just has no teeth.

Got it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Roberts: "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.  I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job." 

Kavanaugh signaled similarly.

ACA will survive.

Edited by Juxtatarot
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

John Roberts: "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.  I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job." 

Kavanaugh signaled similarly.

ACA will survive.

Looks that way.....nothing certain until it happens.  Can't wait for the twitter tirade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Commish said:
6 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

John Roberts: "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate was struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.  I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job." 

Kavanaugh signaled similarly.

ACA will survive.

Looks that way.....nothing certain until it happens.  Can't wait for the twitter tirade.

Serious question: Twitter tirade from whom? Trump? Almost certainly the decision won't be handed down until June or even July. Granted, Trump not being president won't stop him from using the Twitters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FBG26 said:

Serious question: Twitter tirade from whom? Trump? Almost certainly the decision won't be handed down until June or even July. Granted, Trump not being president won't stop him from using the Twitters. 

He'll most definitely be leading the charge and I am confident a myriad of his supporters will join in...should be fun.  This is what we'll have in this country until he's dead.  That's my guess anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 12:58 PM, CletiusMaximus said:

The tax provisions were amended to effectively gut the mandate by removing the financial penalty, but the mandate itself is still there.  It just has no teeth.

The mandate was the biggest issue for conservatives (and me) - being forced to buy a product from a private provider.  I'll be interested to see the full opinion.  If the mandate is excised but ACA allowed to stand that may be the best of all worlds.  I don't have a huge issue with the ACA as a program, but have big issue with the precedent that the mandate sets. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kao-Lin said:

The mandate was the biggest issue for conservatives (and me) - being forced to buy a product from a private provider.  I'll be interested to see the full opinion.  If the mandate is excised but ACA allowed to stand that may be the best of all worlds.  I don't have a huge issue with the ACA as a program, but have big issue with the precedent that the mandate sets. 

Agree 100%.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from a year ago, and not 100% relevant for this thread, but still thought I'd put it here.

Abortions at all time low since Roe v Wade

And it's not due to increased restrictions in certain areas but rather better access to contraception.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samuel Alito's speech this week was more dangerous than any lame duck tweets or unfounded lawsuits.  This guy gives the word fringe a bad name.

The Supreme Court is no longer 'just calling balls and strikes'.  It may be time to get serious about term limits, with a regular rotation of those bench seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trader jake said:

Samuel Alito's speech this week was more dangerous than any lame duck tweets or unfounded lawsuits.  This guy gives the word fringe a bad name.

The Supreme Court is no longer 'just calling balls and strikes'.  It may be time to get serious about term limits, with a regular rotation of those bench seats.

Can you elaborate more on which speech and what was concerning? Or link an article about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, gianmarco said:
2 hours ago, trader jake said:

Samuel Alito's speech this week was more dangerous than any lame duck tweets or unfounded lawsuits.  This guy gives the word fringe a bad name.

The Supreme Court is no longer 'just calling balls and strikes'.  It may be time to get serious about term limits, with a regular rotation of those bench seats.

Can you elaborate more on which speech and what was concerning? Or link an article about it?

In Unusually Political Speech, Alito Says Liberals Pose Threat to Liberties

Subtitle: The conservative justice’s pointed remarks, which he made in a speech to the Federalist Society, reflected thoughts he has expressed in his opinions.

ETA: FYI, you have to get about halfway through the article for quotes on what Alito actually said to the Federalist Society. 

Edited by FBG26
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, trader jake said:

Samuel Alito's speech this week was more dangerous than any lame duck tweets or unfounded lawsuits.  This guy gives the word fringe a bad name.

The Supreme Court is no longer 'just calling balls and strikes'.  It may be time to get serious about term limits, with a regular rotation of those bench seats.

 

People are hypersensitive about tradition.

A change from tradition will be seen as treasonous. I'm not assessing the rights or wrongs of it, just that packing the court will generate uncontrolled animosity in BOTH the most radical fringe elements of the left and right.

There was an old episode of 20/20, where they had an interview with a professional thief. Only did high level scores. He talked about how no one ever starts by robbing a bank, they start as a kid with a candy bar, then rationalize the choice and progress in their mindset that it's not so bad, that they aren't a bad person, even up to robbing a bank.

No society just starts lining up teachers behind the school house, put them on their knees and shoot them in the back of the head. But history is full of societies where that happened. The educators were rounded up and lined up and shot.

When Biden packs SCOTUS, it's going to get some people to envision their children living in a world where they face a social credit system and are beaten for having a different opinion and sent off to be sexual slaves, organ harvested and tortured, kind of like all those people in concentration camps that stitch together LeBron James' signature Nikes that no one in the MSM wants to admit actually exists.

If the DNC pushes to court pack SCOTUS, it will be unleashing Pandora's Box of the worst things imaginable. To some, it will look like treason and an attack on freedom and the precursor to turning their kids into slaves.  This is not a partisan issue but one of human nature. Don't f**k with tradition. Do it at your own peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

If the DNC pushes to court pack SCOTUS, it will be unleashing Pandora's Box of the worst things imaginable. To some, it will look like treason and an attack on freedom and the precursor to turning their kids into slaves.  This is not a partisan issue but one of human nature. Don't f**k with tradition. Do it at your own peril.

I agree that packing the court would be viewed very negatively by the right and possibly some in the middle.  To be fair, almost anything the Dems do will be.  At a certain point, you fight fire with fire.

When the GOP has power, they wield it.  If the Dems want to start changing things they care about, they need to start doing the same.

Sadly, the Supreme Court has become just another partisan fight.  You see it with who gets on the court (more and more to the fringes on both sides), you also see it with who is even considered as candidates for the court, and more and more you see it in the court rulings.

Alito is a product of a broken system and probably shouldn't be one of the most powerful people in the United States.  His worldview is on the fringe and he has no incentive to do anything but expand it in any way he can.  That's much more dangerous than both sides changing the system to make it work for everyone.  Instead we see fight after fight and the judicial branch sways based on the timing of when a few old people pass away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

 

If the DNC pushes to court pack SCOTUS, it will be unleashing Pandora's Box of the worst things imaginable. To some, it will look like treason and an attack on freedom and the precursor to turning their kids into slaves.  This is not a partisan issue but one of human nature. Don't f**k with tradition. Do it at your own peril.

Oh bull. This is total nonsense. The republicans just put a highly partisan justice in a few weeks before an election and it cost them literally nothing. The Dems have to stop caring about this pansy crap and do what needs to be done when they have the power. The republicans sure don’t care, neither should they. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Capella said:

Oh bull. This is total nonsense. The republicans just put a highly partisan justice in a few weeks before an election and it cost them literally nothing. The Dems have to stop caring about this pansy crap and do what needs to be done when they have the power. The republicans sure don’t care, neither should they. 

 

What happened to Merrick Garland should not have happened. Having that deadlock at 8 SCOTUS Justices hampered the ability of the court at the time to effectively serve the American people.

The "right move" is to expand the court to 10 justices and add Merrick Garland without a confirmation hearing. When a justice, besides Garland, retires or dies, then the court reduces back to 9 permanently and stays at 9 forever. Then map out a hard timeline from the process of nomination to hearing to confirmation that everyone uses moving forward.

This halts calls to pack the court.

If a Justice retires or dies, the sitting President should be able to nominate and have a hearing in an expedient manner.  Whether it's his first day in office or his last day in office.

Do you not see the long term outcome from SCOTUS court packing? An increasing number of Justices to the point where a critical case/vote will only be swayed by having either a fringe element of the radical left OR right pick someone off. Is that the future some of you want for your kids? Because if you have court packing and each side keeps adding Justices, the only equalizer without term limits is death. Do any you want open firefights between US Marshals and some fringe group trying to ambush someone to eliminate a vote? Or multiple votes at once?

Amy Coney Barrett should not have to pay for what happened to Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland should not have to pay for some previous partisan dick measuring contest.

Chris,  I spoke to you on the phone once long ago. You didn't seem like an unreasonable person then, I suspect you are not an unreasonable person now. Packing the court is not the way. It will invite an easy pathway to bloodshed, violence, civil unrest and death. When you lose traditions, you lose the loose boundaries that keep all of us from turning primal on each other.

IIRC, you are an attorney, are you not? What would you suggest as a fair alternative to packing the court that would give Merrick Garland due process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

What happened to Merrick Garland should not have happened. Having that deadlock at 8 SCOTUS Justices hampered the ability of the court at the time to effectively serve the American people.

The "right move" is to expand the court to 10 justices and add Merrick Garland without a confirmation hearing. When a justice, besides Garland, retires or dies, then the court reduces back to 9 permanently and stays at 9 forever. Then map out a hard timeline from the process of nomination to hearing to confirmation that everyone uses moving forward.

This halts calls to pack the court.

If a Justice retires or dies, the sitting President should be able to nominate and have a hearing in an expedient manner.  Whether it's his first day in office or his last day in office.

Do you not see the long term outcome from SCOTUS court packing? An increasing number of Justices to the point where a critical case/vote will only be swayed by having either a fringe element of the radical left OR right pick someone off. Is that the future some of you want for your kids? Because if you have court packing and each side keeps adding Justices, the only equalizer without term limits is death. Do any you want open firefights between US Marshals and some fringe group trying to ambush someone to eliminate a vote? Or multiple votes at once?

Amy Coney Barrett should not have to pay for what happened to Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland should not have to pay for some previous partisan dick measuring contest.

Chris,  I spoke to you on the phone once long ago. You didn't seem like an unreasonable person then, I suspect you are not an unreasonable person now. Packing the court is not the way. It will invite an easy pathway to bloodshed, violence, civil unrest and death. When you lose traditions, you lose the loose boundaries that keep all of us from turning primal on each other.

IIRC, you are an attorney, are you not? What would you suggest as a fair alternative to packing the court that would give Merrick Garland due process?

I think expecting civil unrest and death etc as the likely outcome of adding a few SCOTUS seats is more unreasonable than anything I am suggesting.  I think the court should move to 11, Garland should get a spot and there should be term limits. I know the likely outcome is 0 of those 3 ever happening, but what the republicans did with their October push through was way more dramatic than anything the democrats would do. Imo. 
 

How would ACB be paying for anything if the court goes from 9 to 11? Sure her vote gets diluted a little but it doesn’t have anything to do with her personally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Alito was nominated, I recall reading an appellate court opinion of his where he actually misunderstood the statute and ruled incorrectly. It was an employment case and I recall it being a true objective mistake. I have to see if I can recall the details. In any event, I did not have a whole lot of respect for his judicial chops after reading that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Capella said:

I think expecting civil unrest and death etc as the likely outcome of adding a few SCOTUS seats is more unreasonable than anything I am suggesting. 
 

How would ACB be paying for anything if the court goes from 9 to 11? Sure her vote gets diluted a little but it doesn’t have anything to do with her personally. 

 

If court packing is allowed and then, by some pathway, after time for partisan dick fighting to drive it,  then Roe VS Wade is on track to be reversed. You'd have fringe elements who are either pro choice or pro life find that the easiest solution would be to pick off the SCOTUS Justices who don't line up to their views. Then pick off the nominees who lean the way they don't want. If you keep picking them off, no one will want to take the nomination once they see the handwriting on the wall. Translate that to any issue where radical elements will have incentive to engage and you still have this same problem.

This "you cheated, so I'm going to cheat, everyone cheats, let's cheat to win the way we want" is a slippery slope that will end up badly for the American people.

How many lefties here ( Let's not pretend this sub forum does not lean liberal for most people participating) would be pushing for court packing and term limits if there were 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices who were established liberal Democrats prior to appointment and their previous rulings all leaned that way prior to nomination?  In order for liberals to be justified for court packing and terms limits as a method TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, it would mean they would still be for court packing and term limits even if 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices were established liberals.

ACB's entire hearing and confirmation process was completely politicized. That's how she paid for it. She was not questioned on her legal career as qualification nor actual ability to serve the American people, but as part of some partisan dick measuring contest. That Garland didn't even get his shot was one of the worst things I've seen in modern American history.

I said my peace on this. I'd like to see a course correction to account for what happened to Merrick Garland. I don't see how packing the court or term limits helps. I see it as letting people with specific agendas try to break the one branch of government that was never meant to be politicized.

Once the "You Cheated, So I'm Justified In Cheating, Let's All Cheat, Let's Change The Rules To Cheat, Let's Just Change Everything That Doesn't Fit Our Agenda Given The Time And Place And The Future Be Damned" mantra is accepted, then open bloodshed is just another pathway for some to get what they want.

Good luck. You are a fellow FBG. We don't have to agree politically to wish each other safety and good health in this pandemic.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

If court packing is allowed and then, by some pathway, after time for partisan dick fighting to drive it,  then Roe VS Wade is on track to be reversed. You'd have fringe elements who are either pro choice or pro life find that the easiest solution would be to pick off the SCOTUS Justices who don't line up to their views. Then pick off the nominees who lean the way they don't want. If you keep picking them off, no one will want to take the nomination once they see the handwriting on the wall. Translate that to any issue where radical elements will have incentive to engage and you still have this same problem.

This "you cheated, so I'm going to cheat, everyone cheats, let's cheat to win the way we want" is a slippery slope that will end up badly for the American people.

How many lefties here ( Let's not pretend this sub forum does not lean liberal for most people participating) would be pushing for court packing and term limits if there were 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices who were established liberal Democrats prior to appointment and their previous rulings all leaned that way prior to nomination?  In order for liberals to be justified for court packing and terms limits as a method TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, it would mean they would still be for court packing and term limits even if 9 sitting SCOTUS Justices were established liberals.

ACB's entire hearing and confirmation process was completely politicized. That's how she paid for it. She was not questioned on her legal career as qualification nor actual ability to serve the American people, but as part of some partisan dick measuring contest. That Garland didn't even get his shot was one of the worst things I've seen in modern American history.

I said my peace on this. I'd like to see a course correction to account for what happened to Merrick Garland. I don't see how packing the court or term limits helps. I see it as letting people with specific agendas try to break the one branch of government that was never meant to be politicized.

Once the "You Cheated, So I'm Justified In Cheating, Let's All Cheat, Let's Change The Rules To Cheat, Let's Just Change Everything That Doesn't Fit Our Agenda Given The Time And Place And The Future Be Damned" mantra is accepted, then open bloodshed is just another pathway for some to get what they want.

Good luck. You are a fellow FBG. We don't have to agree politically to wish each other safety and good health in this pandemic.

Of course no leftie would be asking for court packing if there were 9 Dems on the court but I would still be asking for term limits I can promise you that. None of these people should have lifetime appointments, that is insane to me. 
 

Also, as a liberal I wouldn’t want 9 Dems. It’s good to have a variety of different opinions. Same reason I wouldn’t want 9 white guys either. You need people from many different life experiences and perspectives for a job this important. 
 

There are 13 appellate courts. In my dream there would be 13 scotus seats, one from each appellate court area but that’s obviously never happening. I do think what they did with ACB broke all the norms though and that’s a reason to go to 11. I do see your point about how her hearing was unfair to her, but honestly if she had any sense of the moment she would have turned down the nomination. But who would ever then down a SCOTUS seat and they would have picked somebody else anyhow  

 

I don’t think the idea of bloodshed following going to 11 seats is even remotely likely, but like you said we don’t have to agree here. I certainly wish you all the best and good health, it’s been a tough year all around and I hope 2021 is far better for everybody. 

Edited by Capella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.