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.

Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

You don't have to be passive aggressive because your dumb schtick got called out.  You know I'm right.  I know I'm right.  But again, great you nailed him because "this thread".  Great work as always
:goodposting:    The thread is only 12 hours old, plenty of time to "repeat that lie so often they believe it".   :lmao:

He's horrible with context, jumps in the middle of conversations without half the understanding.

 
Sure...Nadler makes it different.  I was more adding to the laughter at Guam guy.

This still seems more fringe overall than mainstream.  We will see what the dem leadership does.
You may be right.  Just noting that Nadler does add a bit of gravitas.

Though anytime we can bring up the Guam guy the better - that one never gets old.

 
Biden seems to be against it, Cletius. But he never outright said that during the run-up to the election. He sidestepped and evaded the question every time.

We think (some of us that comment here) that his assignation of the matter to a committee meant it was something was going to get shoved on the back burner for a little peace and quiet for the President, but it seems the noisier, "progressive" members of Congress aren't going to let that happen.
He will be against it till then end he will be convinced that its super important.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Democrats need to stop worrying about this issue period. Here’s why: conservative appointments to the Supreme Court can sometimes slow down progressive change, but they don’t stop it: 

1. A conservative appointment wrote the Roe vs Wade decision. 
2. A conservative appointment declared Obamacare constitutional. 
3. A conservative appointment made same sex marriages legal. 
 

And on and on and on. It never seems to works the other way: liberal appointments don’t suddenly make conservative decisions; they stay liberal. The result is that whoever appoints the court, they move in a liberal direction. Sometimes they move slowly but the move is always there. Conservatives hate that this is true but they know that it is. 
Pretty much the same with liberals.   Think about Biden is on video saying "A marriage is between a man and a woman"  Hillary was against gay marriage, Obama was against the gays getting married.  It took time but they slowly came around.  Now did they come around on their own or was it political and for votes?  That we don`t know. A little of both I would think.

 
Apparently Pelosi has already said that this isn't going to the see the light of day.  No surprise.
Assuming this is true (which is probably safe to do), what is the political benefit to trial-ballooning this without making a real attempt to implement it?

 
Assuming this is true (which is probably safe to do), what is the political benefit to trial-ballooning this without making a real attempt to implement it?
Those introducing and co-sponsoring appealing to the progressives in their states?

 
Apparently Pelosi has already said that this isn't going to the see the light of day.  No surprise.
Assuming this is true, I’m sure it will be followed up with here by all the heavily right leaning folks who are bashing the left as power hungry with “I was wrong.....”

 
:goodposting:    The thread is only 12 hours old, plenty of time to "repeat that lie so often they believe it".   :lmao:

He's horrible with context, jumps in the middle of conversations without half the understanding.
Me or wreck or are you speaking third person here?  The bold is word for word what he did and you appear to be doing in this thread in this instance.  You can read for yourself :shrug:   I didn't realize we had so many people competing for the PSF police force :lmao:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assuming this is true (which is probably safe to do), what is the political benefit to trial-ballooning this without making a real attempt to implement it?
When I went to look for this bill on govtrack.us I couldn't find it.  I didn't want to offer any opinion until reading it as I thought there were three possibilities.  This was just grand standing just like most of the 3995 unenacted  bills you will find there.  Option two was that this was a dangerous political gambit to actually pack the court.  Option three is that there was a thoughtful bill to expand the court along @Sinn Feinlines in such a way that no one would honestly use the words "court packing" by (as an example) phasing in the new justices over many future presidential terms.  I'm guessing, and always did that this was just another bill like most of the other 3995 proposed so a few people could stand in front of the camera and tell their constituents (both now and maybe future) that they were doing this great thing, but I still haven't seen the bill to know if this is really my opinion.

 
Assuming this is true (which is probably safe to do), what is the political benefit to trial-ballooning this without making a real attempt to implement it?
Allows Biden and other mainstream Dems to look like moderates for not supporting this (even though they’re doing a lot of progressive stuff that the public either likes or doesn’t pay attention to).

 
Assuming this is true (which is probably safe to do), what is the political benefit to trial-ballooning this without making a real attempt to implement it?
To show what can happen when a party has leadership willing to challenge it's loopiest members instead of caving to their every whim?

 
Assuming this is true, I’m sure it will be followed up with here by all the heavily right leaning folks who are bashing the left as power hungry with “I was wrong.....”
I know this was directed at a bunch of people who were posting on page 1 and not at me, but I do want to reiterate for the record that one of the reasons that I supported Biden is because I see him as somebody who's unlikely to get on board with additional norm-breaking.  I don't expect him to support court packing, and I would be disappointed if he did.

 
I know this was directed at a bunch of people who were posting on page 1 and not at me, but I do want to reiterate for the record that one of the reasons that I supported Biden is because I see him as somebody who's unlikely to get on board with additional norm-breaking.  I don't expect him to support court packing, and I would be disappointed if he did.
Absolutely was not pointed at you IK.  
 

Didn’t vote for him but I couldn’t agree more with your last sentence.  

 
After the Republican's pulled their stunt it was quite clear that no matter who is in power they are going to target making the court support them.  

 
Pretty much the same with liberals.   Think about Biden is on video saying "A marriage is between a man and a woman"  Hillary was against gay marriage, Obama was against the gays getting married.  It took time but they slowly came around.  Now did they come around on their own or was it political and for votes?  That we don`t know. A little of both I would think.
I think with Obama being against gay marriage was purely political. 

 
After the Republican's pulled their stunt it was quite clear that no matter who is in power they are going to target making the court support them.  
This might be true, but how logistically would democrats pull this off?   Sure they could conceivably get this out of the House, but there is no way this gets past the Senate Parliamentarian as a budget bill and thus could be passed with 50 votes plus the VP via reconciliation.  So do they eliminate the filibuster here?  Maybe they should but are even democrats so bad with optics that they would do both at the same time?  And then what about Biden?  I am not sure he is really opposed to this so I won't make that argument, but it is clearly not high on his agenda.  How does he get through his agenda when this ties up debate now and then very likely cost him Congress in 2022?  

While I still haven't seen the bill, I think logistically this was never happening until at least 2022 when the democrats ride into super majorities.  Like what usually happens during mid terms.  (Yes I'm being sill here.)

 
RGB on packing the court:

"Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said, adding, “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

But they were outraged that the GOP replaced her.  Were they just using her as a pawn?  Otherwise, why would they defy her beliefs by trying to pack the court?

 
I know this was directed at a bunch of people who were posting on page 1 and not at me, but I do want to reiterate for the record that one of the reasons that I supported Biden is because I see him as somebody who's unlikely to get on board with additional norm-breaking.  I don't expect him to support court packing, and I would be disappointed if he did.
I think you said you'd stop caring about electoral politics.   Im gonna hold you to that !!!

 
And I wasn't even trying....guess I'm just awesome like that :lol:  
Well, technically, the fact that you took time to respond to my post and then continue with it's defense means you were actively trying.  If you weren't trying then you wouldn't have responded at all. 

I get you want to play gotcha, but the larger point I was making still stands: the court seat was not stolen despite the numerous lies by the zealots that it was.  Anyone saying that clearly believes it was THEIR seat to replace.

 
When I went to look for this bill on govtrack.us I couldn't find it.  I didn't want to offer any opinion until reading it as I thought there were three possibilities.  This was just grand standing just like most of the 3995 unenacted  bills you will find there.  Option two was that this was a dangerous political gambit to actually pack the court.  Option three is that there was a thoughtful bill to expand the court along @Sinn Feinlines in such a way that no one would honestly use the words "court packing" by (as an example) phasing in the new justices over many future presidential terms.  I'm guessing, and always did that this was just another bill like most of the other 3995 proposed so a few people could stand in front of the camera and tell their constituents (both now and maybe future) that they were doing this great thing, but I still haven't seen the bill to know if this is really my opinion.
Nadler said that under the proposed Bill, Biden would be able to elect 4 new Justices.  So this isn't a phasing. 

I have serious doubts this could get passed.  It allows Democrats in progressive areas to back the Bill and Democrats in moderate areas to reject it.            

 
I know this was directed at a bunch of people who were posting on page 1 and not at me, but I do want to reiterate for the record that one of the reasons that I supported Biden is because I see him as somebody who's unlikely to get on board with additional norm-breaking.  I don't expect him to support court packing, and I would be disappointed if he did.
The Center united and held in regards to Trump.  I'd expect it to do the same again.

 
Conservatives cant be thoughtful?
If applying reasoned judgment to a question always results in a shift towards progressivism for society as a whole then how can applying reasoned judgment ever confirm a conservative position?  

For this logical exercise the condition of the "if" is to be presumed true.  When you reject the exercise entirely in a few seconds you will more likely dismiss the presumption as being false than waste time on the logical conclusion.  But is the presumption false?  Isn't what @timschocheta rather accurate observation over time?  Even if we replaced the "always" with "more often than not" does it change the logic in a meaningful way?

If we aren't doing a simplistic, binary logical exercise  then  there would usually be thoughtful guys (and gals) that explain and justify logically a conservative position.  Some of which I have even bought into.

 
Nadler said that under the proposed Bill, Biden would be able to elect 4 new Justices.  So this isn't a phasing. 

I have serious doubts this could get passed.  It allows Democrats in progressive areas to back the Bill and Democrats in moderate areas to reject it.            
Thanks.  I didn't mention it but my three options were in order of being likely.  And I did mention in a different post how if this was a real proposal to really pack the court it still seemed logistically impossible.  I'll add even if it somehow passed as described it seems rather unlikely that Biden would be able to add these justices.

 
Well, technically, the fact that you took time to respond to my post and then continue with it's defense means you were actively trying.  If you weren't trying then you wouldn't have responded at all. 

I get you want to play gotcha, but the larger point I was making still stands: the court seat was not stolen despite the numerous lies by the zealots that it was.  Anyone saying that clearly believes it was THEIR seat to replace.
THERE'S the "technicality" the other two were looking for :lol:

And no, it wasn't stolen.  Doesn't change the mischaracterization of this thread and the people commenting on "stealing", unless you were including yourself in that group.

 
By the way....are we allowed to use this thread as evidence that many here in the PSF DON'T agree with packing the courts in the future, when the usuals come in saying "everybody" here cheers it on and wants it to happen?  Or is that going to be a "gotcha" too?  Asking for a friend.

Can't remember the last time this place was pretty much in agreement on something :thumbup:  

 
This is why I didn't vote for Joe Biden. Nor did I vote for Trump (certainly not) but Biden's refusal to not add justices to the Supreme Court struck me as evasive at best, as disingenuous at worst. The Democrats doing this will forever change the structure of government. It is not a good idea to have thirteen justices so that you strike a temporary majority. This is indeed an option that will lose them the Senate and the House in the midterms.
You could tell he was lying through his teeth as he went from saying it was a bad idea to refusing to answer such question.  As if voters were not entitled to know his plan for the court.   Of course he was in a tough spot as either answer would negatively effect his chances.  But it was far too important of an issue to brush off as partisan and also the reason I could not vote for him despite not liking Trump.  

 
By the way....are we allowed to use this thread as evidence that many here in the PSF DON'T agree with packing the courts in the future, when the usuals come in saying "everybody" here cheers it on and wants it to happen?  Or is that going to be a "gotcha" too?  Asking for a friend.

Can't remember the last time this place was pretty much in agreement on something :thumbup:  
:shrug:

I have a hunch more are cheering this than admit it. Just a hunch

 
By the way....are we allowed to use this thread as evidence that many here in the PSF DON'T agree with packing the courts in the future, when the usuals come in saying "everybody" here cheers it on and wants it to happen?  Or is that going to be a "gotcha" too?  Asking for a friend.

Can't remember the last time this place was pretty much in agreement on something :thumbup:  
:shrug:

I have a hunch more are cheering this than admit it. Just a hunch
I'm sure lots of conservatives are cheering this on in hopes that democrats turn this into a PR nightmare.  In hopes that it all backfires into securing an even larger conservative majority on the courts.   I doubt very many of those on the left that absolutely want the courts to shift left and actually gave a minute of thought to whether this would accomplish this goal are cheering.

 
Another result of this trial balloon is it adds leverage to the Democrats if/when a Supreme Ct seat opens up under Biden.  If McConnell and Co. pull another Merrick Garland, Democrats will be able to use their refusal to pack the court as further evidence that they’re playing fair but Republicans are not  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently Pelosi has already said that this isn't going to the see the light of day.  No surprise.
Is that what she meant when she said she supported Biden's commission studying it, that it is an "idea that should be considered" and that it is "not out of the question?"  Hmmm......

 
Another result of this trial balloon is it adds leverage to the Democrats if/when a Supreme Ct seat opens up under Biden.  If McConnell and Co. pull another Merrick Garland, Democrats will be able to use their refusal to pack the court as further evidence that they’re playing fair but Republicans are not  
This idea that the Democrats ever played fair when it came to the court is laughable.  

 
Democrats need to stop worrying about this issue period. Here’s why: conservative appointments to the Supreme Court can sometimes slow down progressive change, but they don’t stop it: 

1. A conservative appointment wrote the Roe vs Wade decision. 
2. A conservative appointment declared Obamacare constitutional. 
3. A conservative appointment made same sex marriages legal. 
 

And on and on and on. It never seems to works the other way: liberal appointments don’t suddenly make conservative decisions; they stay liberal. The result is that whoever appoints the court, they move in a liberal direction. Sometimes they move slowly but the move is always there. Conservatives hate that this is true but they know that it is. 
Isn't ending what you describe pretty much why The Federalist Society has been put front and center of right-wing judicial nominations?

 
Biden is not on board.  Pelosi is totally against packing the court and she said she won`t even put it up for a vote.   That is a good thing if we want to keep power in the house. Power grabs are not good for getting reelected. Gives the other side too much ammo.

Puzzling thing is the Supreme Court has high approval ratings from both sides right now.  What bothers me is Nadler and others have gone against what Biden wants and not showing respect for our President.

 
:shrug:

I have a hunch more are cheering this than admit it. Just a hunch
You're probably right.  Not much of a difference between the "screw the GOP, they started this" and the "Oh I hope they do this, screw it up or set a new precedent we can then claim ourselves" groups....two sides of the same coin.

I tend to take people at their word rather than try the "I know what you REALLY think" shtick just to appease a narrative.

 
Just based on history and the number of justices the Republicans vs Democrats have been able to appoint, I'd expect at least 3 out of the 4 expanded seats to be appointed by Republicans if this were to pass.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top