PDA

View Full Version : The Supreme Court thread



versusreality
09-18-2020, 07:20 PM
we're in trouble. Trump's list includes Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton.

allegro
09-18-2020, 07:22 PM
we're in trouble. Trump's list includes Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton.

They’re not real nominees; neither has ever been a judge. You can’t be a SCOTUS justice unless you have experience as a judge. Even Cruz has already said this isn’t real.

versusreality
09-18-2020, 07:29 PM
They’re not real nominees; neither has ever been a judge. You can’t be a SCOTUS justice unless you have experience as a judge. Even Cruz has already said this isn’t real.

good. either way, we're in trouble. he's going to pick, as I said to my gf, someone who is anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-anything white male.

allegro
09-18-2020, 07:35 PM
good. either way, we're in trouble. he's going to pick, as I said to my gf, someone who is anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-anything white male.
I’m not certain that he’s going to pick anyone. Pushing this through this late is a death wish for the GOP control of the Senate. We shall see. When he pulled a Brett Kavanaugh, Dems won back the House.

But right now is a time of mourning and to honor a great great woman.

https://youtu.be/biIRlcQqmOc

Jinsai
09-18-2020, 07:41 PM
I’m not certain that he’s going to pick anyone. Pushing this through this late is a death wish for the GOP control of the Senate. We shall see. When he pulled a Brett Kavanaugh, Dems won back the House.

This requires an autopsy that actually connects the dots here. The GOP voting base is so delusional about stuff at this point that they probably think it's a deep state pizza/satan thing that stole the House and George Soros paid for it with baby blood. If that's the sort of voter they're relying on to pull off a hail-mary pass leading into an election they're assuming they're going to lose, they might do something completely insane.

allegro
09-18-2020, 07:50 PM
This requires an autopsy that actually connects the dots here. The GOP voting base is so delusional about stuff at this point that they probably think it's a deep state pizza/satan thing that stole the House and George Soros paid for it with baby blood. If that's the sort of voter they're relying on to pull off a hail-mary pass leading into an election they're assuming they're going to lose, they might do something completely insane.
That’s not the GOP base; it’s the Trump base. There are candidates like Sen. Cory Gardner and Sen. Susan Collins etc. who are in serious jeopardy right now in moderate districts and pulling some bullshit like this won’t help them one bit.

Let the GOP lose every motherfucking seat, and then if the Democrats win THEY WILL BLOW OUT THE MOTHERFUCKING FILIBUSTER AND WILL STACK THE SCOTUS.

And all of this is drift in this thread. we need to move it to the Trump thread.

allegro
09-18-2020, 08:13 PM
McConnell didn’t wait for the body to get cold. He says there will be a vote in the Senate for a SCOTUS nominee to replace RBG.

https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516628480?s=21

Jinsai
09-18-2020, 08:23 PM
McConnell didn’t wait for the body to get cold.

Was about to post the exact same thing with pretty much the exact same wording.

Sorry Mitch. This IS NOT happening.

Wretchedest
09-18-2020, 08:56 PM
As much as I hope that Chuck grows a spine for this one.... What's the actual recourse. Murkowsi said she would wait to vote til after the election but.... That's 2 months til inauguration

eachpassingphase
09-18-2020, 09:15 PM
Eat shit, Mitch.

allegro
09-18-2020, 09:43 PM
As much as I hope that Chuck grows a spine for this one.... What's the actual recourse. Murkowsi said she would wait to vote til after the election but.... That's 2 months til inauguration

Mitt Romney is now saying he will refuse to vote until after inauguration, as well.

Crowds singing “Amazing Grace” on the steps of the Supreme Court is killing me gahhhhh :( :( :(

Wretchedest
09-19-2020, 01:22 AM
Mitt Romney is now saying he will refuse to vote until after inauguration, as well.

Crowds singing “Amazing Grace” on the steps of the Supreme Court is killing me gahhhhh :( :( :(

I think that makes 4 actually so

You're telling me there's a chance!

GulDukat
09-19-2020, 04:45 AM
What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Could Mean For 2020 And The Supreme Court (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-could-mean-for-2020-and-the-supreme-court/)

GulDukat
09-19-2020, 06:50 AM
This is bad. Even if Biden wins, the Evil Turtle will wait until after the election but before January 20 (with a lame duck POTUS and Congress) to ram whoever asshole Trump nominates.

ltrandazzo
09-19-2020, 09:44 AM
This is bad. Even if Biden wins, the Evil Turtle will wait until after the election but before January 20 (with a lame duck POTUS and Congress) to ram whoever asshole Trump nominates.

Unless we take the Senate back, and we can. And if they do likely get away with this, it’s time to pack the fucking court.

allegro
09-19-2020, 11:10 AM
This is bad. Even if Biden wins, the Evil Turtle will wait until after the election but before January 20 (with a lame duck POTUS and Congress) to ram whoever asshole Trump nominates.

Murkowski and Romney are saying “no” until after inauguration.

Another interesting thing I just saw? That if Kelly wins in AZ, he could be immediately sworn in, in November, not January, because McSally won in a special election after McCain died?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/the-winner-of-the-arizona-senate-race-could-be-seated-in-time-for-a-vote-on-a-supreme-court-pick.html

The Republicans have 6 more Senators plus a VP tie breaker, so Democrats would need enough to cover that spread until the inauguration.

GulDukat
09-19-2020, 11:50 AM
Murkowski and Romney are saying “no” until after inauguration.



Did they say "no" until after the inauguration or until after the election? I am doing a Google search and can't find a source. If you are correct that would give me peace of mind.

allegro
09-19-2020, 12:13 PM
Did they say "no" until after the inauguration or until after the election? I am doing a Google search and can't find a source. If you are correct that would give me peace of mind.

I only have this:

https://twitter.com/JimDabakis/status/1307120855454044160?s=20

https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1290248244682018816?s=20

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sen-murkowski-says-confirming-supreme-court-nominee-in-2020-would-be-double-standard/

Grassley was also on record as being against it, based on 2016. Collins might also be against it.

So that'd be:

Romney
Murkowski
Grassley
Collins
Kelly

Some are questioning whether McConnell would even have a quorum. SCOTUS hearings would require that Senators stop all campaigning to attend hearings.

My anxiety level is -- (out of a scale of 1-10) on "30" right now.

eachpassingphase
09-19-2020, 01:30 PM
Unless we take the Senate back, and we can. And if they do likely get away with this, it’s time to pack the fucking court.

Agreed. And even if Republicans stand down and don't ram somebody through, a reckoning is long overdue.

It's time for Democrats to stop with the propriety and hand-wringing and time for them to go scorched earth the second they have even a morsel of control back.The majority of Americans are NOT Trumpers (popular vote has proven this), but you wouldn't know it by looking at the way our election system works, and that's by Republican design.

No forgiveness, no compromise. Republicans have been fucking Dems for ages, and it's time for them to fuck back.

Jinsai
09-19-2020, 03:16 PM
Lindsay Graham can go straight to hell. Hypocrite weasel scumbag. Not surprised, but I really, newly hate this person on another level now.

versusreality
09-19-2020, 06:16 PM
Trump went right to it in his rally tonight. He's saying he's going to put out his pick next week. Crowds chanting "fill the seat"

fucking disgusting.

elevenism
09-19-2020, 07:26 PM
Trump went right to it in his rally tonight. He's saying he's going to put out his pick next week. Crowds chanting "fill the seat"

fucking disgusting. oh my dear god. That is SICKENING. I think any other president would have said something about her accomplishments, and the tragedy of this loss, politics aside. Edit: fuck me. Trump DID praise her for like, a minute.

Every time I think the shit trump pulls can't get any worse, he hits a new, terrifying low.
And in each of those moments, I feel a peculiar sense of unreality.

burnmotherfucker!
09-19-2020, 07:42 PM
I'm trying to find a window of optimism here. But I don't think there is one. Everything will be on the table if the court goes to 3-6. Civil liberties, women's rights, fair elections, decriminalization of plants, big pharma regulation, social security, pretty much any relief going to the poor. It could all go just like that. Oh, and no environmental regulation whatsoever.


We're all fucked. Senate will confirm a nominee after the election but before the inauguration. Court stacking isn't going to happen and if it does it could also lead to a huge backfire once dems lose control again.


And all of that is if Trump actually loses the election. Last I checked the odds were Biden -130, Trump +110. That's way too close for comfort in that regard. And I wouldn't even bother with polls after last election. A large number of Trump voters aren't the type of people pollers normally contact.


All of this brought to you by the electoral college.


The only remote hope is enough republican senators delay until inauguration. Unfortunately almost no rebublican has shown an ounce of integrity during this Trump disaster. Do we really think they will now? Romney, sure, but that's only because Trump made him look like a fool and so he hates Trump. Some other moderates will delay until the election but regardless of their outcome they will want to confirm after the election no matter what. It would take 4 republicans to flip until inauguration IF Trump loses. How likely is that?

M1ke
09-19-2020, 07:43 PM
Can someone please just kill the fucking turtle.

Jinsai
09-19-2020, 08:20 PM
of course on Twitter and when there's a journalist in front of him, he'll be all like "OH MY GOD I LOVED Ginsberg!!!! She was a pillar of tremendous female strength and tremendous, just tremendous... tremendously tremendous."

But you put him on a rally stage? "FILL THE SEAT!!!!!!!" not even 24 hours later.
So, who is this lip service even FOR anymore? Who is supposed to buy it?

And then I realized, this disconnect between the truth and clear lies is all part of the gaslighting fun that's driving us libs crazy. NOBODY ON EARTH actually believes that Trump is truly saddened by the passing of Ginsberg.

allegro
09-19-2020, 10:01 PM
Unfortunately, this is pretty fucking doomsday.

It’s pretty bad.

hellospaceboy
09-19-2020, 11:20 PM
There was some concern on Twitter earlier in the day that the Lincoln Project would steer away from their campaign against Trump because -let's face it, they're still Republicans and that Supreme Court seat sure looks tempting...
But no.

Which is good, because they're doing the job that the Democrats should be doing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiUP9EXVoAAEotE?format=jpg&name=large

Jinsai
09-20-2020, 09:11 AM
I'd like to think that they're not just chasing down and tackling the point here, and the Lincoln Project has got to know what sticks with this president is practically NOTHING. I think they know this is a platitude more than anything; that you can wag your finger at Mitch McConnell, and he'll just give you a goofy smile and stare into your eyes and for a brief moment, you will see hell reflected back at you, and then he'll worm his way over to a microphone and warble about how it's cute that you thought your ideals would keep you afloat... and then he'll just pretend you were never in the room. Maybe he'll smile in that wormy way while he points out that "you have no power here"

The shitty part is, he's mostly right. This isn't about who is right or wrong.
I hate to say it, but I think they'll have someone intractably installed before the election.

GulDukat
09-20-2020, 09:59 AM
Arizona Senate race could impact confirmation of new justice (https://apnews.com/c641329537add939609ba8933a4d84a2)

elevenism
09-20-2020, 12:49 PM
how can they get away with confirming a nominee, when they wouldn't let Garland through in an election year?

the sheer hypocrisy of this is astounding.

Jinsai
09-20-2020, 01:07 PM
how can they get away with confirming a nominee, when they wouldn't let Garland through in an election year?

the sheer hypocrisy of this is astounding.

Cue the deafening sound of Mitch McConnell mocking your naivety with his shitty nails-on-chalkboard laughter.

What keeps me going? I really DO believe people are SO FUCKING PISSED right now, and all these pollsters aren't accounting for that. They don't understand, they never really factor it in.

I have to believe it. I am going to pay attention for the early voting returns... If Florida goes to Trump, sorry, I'm going to maybe try out some new crazy drugs and why not, maybe it's time to give DMT a shot. Fuck it. Maybe I'll wake up in a different quantum reality where Trump lost in 2016, Forest Gump says "Life is like a box of chocolates," President Hillary Clinton isn't great but things aren't that bad really, and C3P0 doesn't have a silver leg.

allegro
09-20-2020, 01:19 PM
McConnell's excuse (that's all it is) in confirming a nominee this time vs. Garland is the (bullshit) "Biden Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination#:~:text=T hey%20cited%20a%20June%201992,Democratic%20Senate% 2C%20as%20a%20precedent.)" - which wasn't a rule at all - which McConnell claims is a rule where a President's party differs from the Senate's majority party in an election year, so only THEN you can't confirm a SCOTUS nominee; but if the parties are the same, it's hunky dory. To recap: In 2016, the President was a Democrat and the Senate was Republican-majority. In 1992, when Biden made his speech, GHW Bush was Republican and the Senate was majority Democrat (but there was never a SCOTUS vacancy in 1992). In 2020, the President is Republican and the Senate is majority Republican.


They cited a June 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, in which Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent. Republicans later began to refer to this originally little-noticed idea as the "Biden rule". Biden responded that his position was and remained that the president and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" regarding judicial nominations. Scholars and political analysts objected that there was such a thing as the "Biden rule". PolitiFact noted that Biden's speech was later in the election year than when the GOP blocked Garland, there was no Supreme Court vacancy, there was no nominee under consideration, the Democratic-led Senate never adopted this as a rule, and that Biden did not object to Bush nominating judicial nominees after Election Day.

Here's Lindsey Graham's new excuses (note #1 has nothing to do with SCOTUS; McConnell changed the SCOTUS votes to nuclear, #2 ignores the victim Blasey-Ford and points solely at revenge, and Kavanaugh is now a SCOTUS justice):

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1307381862504042497?s=20

In other words: The GOP is trying to keep the plutocracy in control for the next 30-40 years, or more. And they are already succeeding. Trump was elected by the GOP for ONE primary reason: SCOTUS SEATS and Federal Court seats. All are lifetime positions. The Democrats and the left never seem to give enough shits about this as the right.

Moral of the story: Voting (or not) has consequences.

Re reproductive rights: Many states have already passed legislation making abortion legal in the instance that Roe is overturned (state's rights). Many states can pass constitutional amendments that protect women and LGBTQ and POC etc. An extremely conservative Federal judicial will only affect FEDERAL courts; state courts are elected, even state supreme courts. If you want true change, get local. The Federal government won't help you nearly as much as local. Get local. Demand local and state change. Grow that change until it puts pressure on Washington.

Jinsai
09-20-2020, 01:42 PM
Yes, but Lindsey Graham ALSO said that Trump was crazy and unqualified for the office and a joke or something, then he got right to fluffing him whenever possible after a golf outing. He's probably "kompromat"

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/lindsey-graham-is-trumps-hostage

allegro
09-20-2020, 01:45 PM
Lindsey Graham wants more SCOTUS seats. Period. None of these GOP Senators give a shit about "ethics," they only want conservative justices agreeing with them.

Jinsai
09-20-2020, 01:49 PM
we need to just have a law about how politicians cannot flagrantly lie. We just need to make that illegal. Hypocrisy on some blatant level should be punishable. If it was a jailable offense to completely swap your stance when politically advantageous, maybe people would consider that it's not a good thing to be a hypocritical piece of lying shit.

How about this? "The president is ALWAYS under oath when he/she speaks to the people"
Let's start there.

elevenism
09-20-2020, 02:33 PM
allegro , I heard talk of this "Biden Rule" on CNN, but, couldn't wrap my head around it. So, because of an ARGUMENT made by Biden in 92, or an idea he expressed, the right is trying to say that trump should get to fill the seat, due to some non existent precedent or rule? And, it's very handy that it was biden"s argument, because it falsely casts him in a hypocritical light? Am I getting all of this?

My question is, ultimately, who is the arbiter here?

allegro
09-20-2020, 03:01 PM
There is no "rule." It's something they made up to substantiate their own bullshit. In 1992, Biden wasn't speaking in MARCH; he spoke on June 25. His speech said "It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." Note that there was nothing happening as far as SCOTUS at the time. There was no nominee to consider. He wasn't saying that a nomination WOULDN'T be considered by the Senate; he only stated that, since it was nearly July, with only about 3 months left, the pragmatic way to handle this - should it arise - would be to delay the nomination until after the election.

In March, no election campaign is "well under way." It's just started. There is no arbiter.

We must look at the context of Biden's speech. There was a time when SCOTUS hearings and votes were pretty much TOTALLY bipartisan. RBG received a 98-2 vote. Justice Stevens received a 99-0 vote.

Here are parts of that Biden speech in 1992 (Biden was the chair of the Judiciary Committee):


Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Now, a few political pundits representing the Republicans HAVE mentioned on TV in the last 24 hours - and with merit - that HAD Garland been considered by the Senate, and HAD quorum been reached, and HAD Senate hearings been held, and HAD there been a vote, it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Garland would have been confirmed. He just would not have received enough votes by the Republican majority, who'd be in lock step (particularly in an election year). Obama would have then been forced to submit another nominee, that nominee would go through a hearing process, and Senators who were campaigning to keep their own seats would be unable to do so because they'd be busy in SCOTUS confirmation hearings. So, while McConnell was claiming the "Biden Rule," the reality is that he knew that Garland would never get the votes, and the process would tie up his GOP Senators during election season and that they'd poll way better if he played hardball against Obama.

elevenism
09-20-2020, 03:04 PM
My question about the arbiter: what I mean is, who will make the ultimate decision regarding the seat, as far as when the appointment occurs in this case?

Can it be challenged in court? Is it up to the senate?

allegro
09-20-2020, 03:44 PM
Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

This includes the SCOTUS justices.

The arbiter as to "advise and consent of the Senate" is the Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. HOWEVER, a "quorum" is necessary. You cannot move on to the hearings and then obtain "cloture" vote until you first have a quorum.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/74919ab6-b407-451c-b429-702e9ae8dcb1.pdf

No, none of this can be challenged in court.

See Hamilton Federalist 76 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed76.asp).


Article II, Section II

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

allegro
09-20-2020, 04:30 PM
I keep singing "My Shot" from Hamilton throughout all of this.

I especially love this version at the White House, with the Obamas head-bopping

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEHKBckBcr4&list=RDJXZfXFNfkRk&index=2

bobbie solo
09-22-2020, 04:08 AM
It's time for Democrats to stop with the propriety and hand-wringing and time for them to go scorched earth the second they have even a morsel of control back.The majority of Americans are NOT Trumpers (popular vote has proven this), but you wouldn't know it by looking at the way our election system works, and that's by Republican design.

No forgiveness, no compromise. Republicans have been fucking Dems for ages, and it's time for them to fuck back.

Dem leadership could go scorched earth right now, but have already indicated they won't. Pelosi has taken refusing to pass a budget/raise the debt ceiling off the table (meaning she refuses to work on either in the House unless the nomination is delayed), Biden said Saturday he's against packing the court, Feinstein said she is against removing the filibuster. No mention of bringing new impeachment charges against Trump, which would take precedence over confirmation hearings and delay the whole confirmation process by months in both houses. No riling up the base to get in the streets/perform civil disobedience against this move by McConnell, etc. Yes some of these things are dirty tricks, but thats what is needed to combat these monster reactionaries that are all that's left in the Republican party. All they understand is power. Fight fire with fire. But no...we just get more hand wringing, empty threats and spineless bullshit from these absolute ZEROS:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTTllyv_zNM&ab_channel=U.S.SenatorChrisCoo ns

WAKE UP ASSHOLE. GET IN THE FUCKING GAME. THERE IS NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT YOU CAN MOVE ON THIS WITH YOUR WORDS.

Democrats....paid to lose. #rEsIsTaNcE...spare me.

onthewall2983
09-22-2020, 11:55 AM
https://youtu.be/Qyc-byWM9CQ

Deacon Blackfire
09-22-2020, 04:00 PM
(extremely accurate rant)

I wish this wasn't so on point. But it really is.

Protests aren't going to stop the Republicans from rushing this through in a matter of weeks. The only people who have any ability at all to jam up the process and slow their charge through bureaucratic shenanigans are our elected officials, and yet they seem content to do the whole "you're better than this, Republicans" shuffle and not get serious about using every inch they have. "Because, well, if we packed the courts and added new states, why, Republicans would never forget us playing dirty and never give us a break again!" Except they never give us breaks. They never do. Compromise in this country as long as I have lived means "stepping to the right" and honoring the horseshit gentleman's agreement style niceties of political bureaucracy, that Republicans have never been anything less than eager to stomp on, has won our side no meaningful political victories.

All the "WE CAN'T RUN TOO LEFT OR WE'LL ALIENATE CENTRISTS AND RIGHT WINGERS" rhetoric is pointless, a trap designed by centrist Democrats to disguise the reality of their timidity - namely, that they are Republican-lite assholes who have no interest in anything other than superficial reform. Their commitment to their self-interest - and the Trojan horse "we'll lose if we got too far left" vehicle they hide it within - has had devastating results for the party. They have alienated and turned away such a large portion of what could have been an unstoppable political coalition, all while making their easily exploited weakness against the right obvious to Republicans. I mean Obama had a majority early on and could have forced some things (and he should have), but instead he spent basically his entire presidency genuflecting to Republicans and trying to include them and demonstrate how very adult and non-partisan he was, to the extent that it handicapped the effectiveness and worthiness of his accomplishments like the ACA (once billed as the first step toward universal healthcare, now used as an excuse for NOT pursuing universal healthcare). And it gained him nothing with Republicans. They still billed his very status quo friendly presidency an un-American, totalitarian nightmare and cosplayed as rag-tag resistance fighting back against...something. And they always will, no matter how far people (wrongly) go trying to meet them halfway. For the love of God, our Democratic candidate is fucking Joe Biden, one of the more Republican-adjacent Democrats you are likely to find, and even still, in the eyes of Republicans and Republican media? "Too far left." "Socialist." They say this about JOE BIDEN - they'll say it about anyone we run.

High time people (especially Democrats) accepted that Republicans have no ideology, they only have rhetoric as a means to an end. Demonstrating their hypocrisy means nothing to them. There's no point playing nice with them, ever - they will never, ever give us an inch, no matter how "nice" we are to them.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1308449791215628290

Fat chance though. One of the responses I've seen Pelosi give to the question of "what are you going to do (about the Supreme Court)" was essentially "you all need to get out and vote." Always our responsibility to vote for them, never their responsibility to fight for us.

Sorry to be so doom and gloom but I mean...this is where we are, and we're pretty much fucked. When I think of the Democrats, I think of the scene in Alien where Ash asks Ripley what he can do, and she hisses back, "Just what you've been doing, Ash - nothing."

GulDukat
09-22-2020, 04:37 PM
Romney backs vote on Supreme Court nominee, clearing way for Trump (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee-419898?fbclid=IwAR1r5OgZtL7X3LHDiKlUVAXuvbAACjoO24 U1QY6y_JXn88broy2SzGGxkOQ)

burnmotherfucker!
09-22-2020, 05:41 PM
Well I thought Romney would be the only republican holdout when all was said and done. Not because he's a good person but because Trump absolutely embarrassed him in 2016. I was wrong. It turns out he's a shit eating knob gobbler like the rest of them.

I really don't think the dems do have any recourse for action here sadly. Corporate republican controlled theocracy for the rest of my lifetime incoming. The supreme court is such a big deal because of the lifetime appointment situation. I've been saying stacking the court won't happen, but the more I think about it the more I think they should. It will backfire eventually for sure because dems never hold the senate for long, but at this point what is there to lose? How many lifetimes are going to be ruined by appointees of presidents who lost the election but won the electoral college?

Sebek
09-22-2020, 10:26 PM
This is so fucking depressing. It's not going to happen overnight but they're going to slowly chip away at Roe v Wade until there's not much left of it. My one year old daughter is going to have her choices on how to manage her body removed by the time she's an adult. By these scumbag hypocrites who play by no rules and whose words are hollow and meaningless. The coming seismic shift in the court alignment will last a full generation and I'll be retired before it might turn around. Someone tell me something positive. Tell me there's real reason for hope somewhere. I keep telling myself that Biden will win, that the Dems will take the Senate, that they'll have the balls to kill the filibuster and pack the court, but it seems like so much has to break the right way that it'll never happen.

Wretchedest
09-22-2020, 11:17 PM
How many times are we going to keep electing politicians that *let themselves get played*

Deacon Blackfire
09-22-2020, 11:59 PM
As long as the hopelessly outdated and out-of-touch gatekeepers of the Democratic party hold onto the reins with their clammy old hands.

versusreality
09-23-2020, 05:58 AM
two Godflesh album titles come to mind:
"The New Dark Ages"
and
"A World Lit Only by Fire"

sweeterthan
09-23-2020, 09:45 AM
As long as the hopelessly outdated and out-of-touch gatekeepers of the Democratic party hold onto the reins with their clammy old hands.

unfortunately i agree. people love to applaud pelosi but sheís been disappointing to me for months. trump has openly admitted to criminal activities, weíve had multiple whistle blowers, and plenty of evidence that heís medaling with the election and what has she done? some interviews where she doesnít make much sense and seemingly has no plan to deal with the aforementioned issues.

iíve read several post about keeping up the fight since RGB died but itís hard to remain positive when it seems the gop and trump get away with forcing their agendas.

M1ke
09-23-2020, 12:27 PM
Lets say the democrats take back both the white house and the senate in November, and then decide to pack the court in response to what the republican have done. What does that change? It gets you a few years of decency, but the republicans would take it back again at some other point in the future, and just over-pack it back their way.

And enough people believe and vote republican, that you can't just tell them all to go fuck themselves. But they also won't work with anyone else in any kind of constructive way. Your country works best if people can get along, and can find compromises and take care of each other, but the country isn't doing that.

But Trump has moved the needle from the point where two candidates both said they wanted what was best for the country but just had very different views of what was best, to one of schoolyard bullying and name-calling. And he did so by personifying the worst qualities of America. And showed the republicans that they too can demonstrate the worst qualities of America, and still hold on to power.

Trump successfully demonstrated that accountability in government isn't real. The republicans learned that from him and are no longer even trying to pretend to take a moral high ground, or to be the path of consistency. They're showing their true colours, and Trump is showing them that power grabs are fine in politics as long as you are grabbing it from people who aren't straight white men.

Packing the court isn't going to change anything. The only thing that fixes this problem is real accountability in the government, and the only way that's going to happen is if voters give republicans swift and brutal defeat at the ballot box this year. That's the only way, because (as Trump has made abundantly clear) this is the only form of accountability that exists in government.

allegro
09-23-2020, 02:47 PM
RBG should have retired during the Obama administration. She had cancer FOUR times. I loved RBG, she's meant a lot to women, a LOT. But taking the risks that she did by hanging in there for as long as she did helped nobody but the other side.

The only possible good thing that could come out of this is that the Dems get a supermajority, and pass a lot of legislation.

Ultimately, the Judicial branch does NOT legislate. But the Legislative - state and federal - has been using the Judicial as a Legislative branch for decades. Because the Legislative is rancorous. That needs to end. The Judicial has been used like this for many decades. The Judicial has no enforcement abilities. The Legislative MUST start doing its job.

And, yeah, RBG should have retired in, like, 2010.

The majority of CONGRESS are just like Pelosi; only a relatively small portion of Congress is progressive (left or right). The VOTERS put all those people in Congress where they are.

Any of this shit you're seeing now is because of VOTERS.

Swykk
09-23-2020, 03:04 PM
What of these ideas Iím seeing where the Democrats tie up the Senate by impeaching Barr and/or Trump again for any of the myriad of nonsense theyíve pulled? Is that a thing that would work and get us through the election?

If itís possible, they should do it. Fuck these GOP hypocrite pieces of trash.

richardp
09-24-2020, 12:19 PM
What of these ideas I’m seeing where the Democrats tie up the Senate by impeaching Barr and/or Trump again for any of the myriad of nonsense they’ve pulled? Is that a thing that would work and get us through the election?

If it’s possible, they should do it. Fuck these GOP hypocrite pieces of trash.

It makes sense to me. They all can't attend two hearings at the same time, and one takes precedence over the other so at best, it's a move to delay the nomination until after the election, at worst it's just a another stupid thing we try to do that fails and the GOP takes it and spins the shit out of it in their favor.

At least that's how I see it.

allegro
09-24-2020, 01:39 PM
McConnell wouldn’t start the process, they wouldn’t get cloture.

They’ll get their SCOTUS justice. Because they have a President and the Senate. That’s the way it works.

This is THE most important part of elections.

Not legislation.

Not healthcare.

Not college.

Not minimum wage.

But a justice who’ll be interpreting law for their LIFETIME, over GENERATIONS.

Thomas has been there since 1991.

Gorsuch is 53.

Kavanaugh is 55.

Amy Coney Barrett is 48.

Coney Barrett is allegedly tied to a religious group that’s like The Handmaid’s Tale.

The GOOD news is that Alito is 70.

Thomas is 72.

Scalia died at 79.

But ... Kennedy retired at 82.

Deacon Blackfire
09-24-2020, 02:01 PM
Because Kennedy is an enormous piece of shit. Imagine watching Trump getting elected, getting to appoint a Supreme Court justice that wasn't his to appoint, and thinking, "this seems like a good time to retire." Fuck that guy forever.


I told my very outspokenly liberal half-sister and brother-in-law that I fucking hate Pelosi, that I've never much cared for her milquetoast appeasement and white centrist shit, and they looked at me like I had just put on a balaclava and hurled a malatov cocktail into someone's hybrid SUV because it could have been an electric subcompact.

Long way to go. And thanks to this, and what seems like a certainty that the Democrats we have on offer won't have the balls or power to do shit about it, this is the rest of my life​. I will be dead before we emerge from the dark ages.

Unfortunately establishment Democrats have done an exceptionally good job convincing a sizable portion of comfortable liberal voters that their snail-paced, feeble political utility is somehow borne of necessity and pragmatism, that it isn't a product of their general comfort with right-leaning ideology. It doesn't need to be their way, and in fact doing things "their way" is why we can run against the worst people in the world and still lose. And yet, they remain the gatekeepers, and remain committed to their ineffectual ways, out of pigheaded ignorance or myopic self-interest.

And I can hardly blame you for despairing, over this being the rest of your life. Just turned thirty back in June - I'm not an impressive person and I haven't done nearly as much with my life as I would like to, but I have a roof over my head and enough financial security to live without worrying about food, and for that I consider myself very fortunate. None of that stops the deep surge of dread when I think about the future. The situation our government is in and heading towards is nightmarish enough, but it's when I factor in climate change, that's when I start wondering if I'll even make it to fifty. It has never been given its due, by society, as the looming existential threat it is. Even Obama's environmental policies and commitments were woefully inadequate to successfully combat its severity, and now under Trump we've gone full tilt in the opposite direction. At this point the most devastating consequences are locked in eventualities, and the result will be a slow motion collapse that changes human life forever. We've been good at turning a blind eye to it, but when agriculture utterly collapses and entire fisheries disappear, I don't see any way that the social fabric doesn't just give way.

The most vulnerable will be the most harmed. And the people who stand the best change to escape the climate apocalypse are the wealthy and powerful who disproportionately polluted our Earth the most, who had the greatest ability to stop this from happening.

Sorry to divert from the topic. It's just...hard to feel like we weren't born to lose.

richardp
09-24-2020, 02:22 PM
Coney Barrett is allegedly tied to a religious group that’s like The Handmaid’s Tale.

I just looked this up and yeah it sure seems like she is. It's called "People of Praise" and this tidbit is found on their Wikipedia page:


The highest office a woman can hold in the community is "woman leader" (formerly "handmaid"). Women leaders "teach women on womanly affairs, give advice, help in troubled situations" and lead specialized women's activities. The term handmaiden was chosen in 1971 as a reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus, who in the Bible described herself as a "handmaid of the Lord" or a woman who is close to God. The community teaches that husbands are the head of the household as well as the spiritual head of their wives. While it emphasizes traditional gender roles, the organization encourages women to pursue higher education and employment.

allegro
09-24-2020, 02:56 PM
Because Kennedy is an enormous piece of shit.

Who was the only swing vote for decades.


Establishment Democrats which is the vast majority of Congress, because the vast majority of voters put them there, because of a rancorous obstructionist Congress that's been there since before Reagan.

The "Reid" action that is referenced by McConnell (minority vote for Federal judges, or nuclear) was due to the Republicans obstructing the approval of EVERY single federal court nominee for over two years. This was literally HUNDREDS of Federal justices.

Pelosi was Speaker from 2007–2011 and from 2019-now. She was minority leader from 2011–2019. There is nothing Pelosi can do about this. Nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that affords the House ANY remedy, here. Just attempts that won't work, and will make them look like idiots. They will move the King directly into the path of the Queen. Checkmate.

This, here, what we are witnessing might very well be the complete breakdown of the entire system, the republic. We have an Authoritarian in the White House, we have Republicans in Congress who are fully on board with that Authoritarian being in power and remaining in power, we have those Republicans appointing Federalist jurists - over 225 of them - specifically to uphold this authoritarian system. And, without a huge tsunami of votes to rid the system of these Republicans and Trump, there is nothing to be done about it. The system will be this way for the unforeseeable future. For generations. The Democrats have been outvoted in HUGE numbers by Republicans, in the House largely by gerrymandering and in the Senate largely by racism.

The Republicans are using stuff like "Medicare for All" and “Black Lives Matter” as commie boogie men to energize their masses behind them and they fully intend on maintaining power forever. For them, the ACA was "radical.” If they have to have an authoritarian government to get what they want, they’ll do it. The Trump voters, with "Law and Order" and "MAGA" and "America First" are fully on board with this idea.

It's not exaggerating when this is compared to 1930s Germany.

You don't like what you see? At this point in time, the only thing Americans citizens can do is vote. There is no Constitutional fix for this problem other than voting. Although, that won’t stop the Republicans from creating a majority-conservative SCOTUS. It’s too late to stop that.

Swykk
09-24-2020, 07:17 PM
Okay, I was just reading these suggestions and looking to see how viable they were because, yes, we should all vote and you know I’m going to for sure but I’m certain you’ve also seen where that orange diaper baby is plotting ways to stay in power even if he loses. I just thought it was worth bringing up those ideas because without a majority on the SC, it would be more difficult for him to pull off his scheme(s).

allegro
09-24-2020, 07:44 PM
Okay, I was just reading these suggestions and looking to see how viable they were because, yes, we should all vote and you know I’m going to for sure but I’m certain you’ve also seen where that orange diaper baby is plotting ways to stay in power even if he loses. I just thought it was worth bringing up those ideas because without a majority on the SC, it would be more difficult for him to pull off his scheme(s).

Yup, that’s where we are, now.

Voting en masse is the only option, because it’s far too late for any other option. The only option was Dems winning in 2016, and that's over.

There are no “suggestions” that are viable. No more options. These tricks that are mentioned simply aren't possible, because the Senate doesn't have to hold hearings on those impeachment tricks people think are possible. Hearings aren't required, McConnell can simply file and gavel a Motion to Dismiss.

If voting with a MASSIVE takedown of Trump via the Electoral College plus an overwhelming Democratic takeover of Congress doesn’t occur, the whole DEMOCRACY is over. Done. It has to be massive so that a recount is beyond possible and there is no question as to legitimacy. If it’s close, it’s over.

As far as packing the SCOTUS, The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Justices at nine; Congress (House and Senate) would need an overwhelming majority to pass another Act to revise THAT Act. Democrats might not even flip the Senate in 2020.

Typically, over 50% of eligible voters don’t bother voting in every election.

There are reports indicating that many Democrats are so demoralized and depressed about Trump’s blatant threats to cheat and steal the election that these voters don’t feel like voting because it “won’t matter, anyway.”

I pray that’s not the case.

allegro
09-24-2020, 09:37 PM
lmao I can't even get real about the fact I don't think I'm gonna make it past fifty in the climate change ravaged world we've got coming without getting aggressively talked down to by the Democratic defense league. and I thought I was depressed before!

that's all for me folks, why the fuck do I even bother.
Dude, I’m not even a Democrat. And that wasn’t wholly addressed at you. One or two lines were. I don’t believe that Democrats aren’t on board with doing something about climate change, but that’s drift in the SCOTUS thread.

I’m just as depressed as you are. We all are.

This is the SCOTUS thread. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal occurring right now. It’s too late to fix this. The 2016 election determined this outcome.

And, there is also no guarantee that a majority conservative SCOTUS will toe Trump’s line in all instances; Roberts is the Chief Justice. He doesn’t even have to accept a Writ in the instance of an alleged “election dispute.”

We’ve HAD a conservative SCOTUS court many times in the past. They don’t last if Dems last 2 terms in the WH and are in the Senate. Thomas and Alito are old, Thomas wants to retire.

allegro
09-25-2020, 03:53 PM
This is so fucking depressing. It's not going to happen overnight but they're going to slowly chip away at Roe v Wade until there's not much left of it. My one year old daughter is going to have her choices on how to manage her body removed by the time she's an adult.

FWIW:

13 states and the District of Columbia have laws that protect the right to abortion, by statute.

2 states and the District of Columbia have codified the right to abortion throughout pregnancy without state interference.

11 states explicitly permit abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

If Roe is overturned by the SCOTUS, nothing will change in those states and the District of Columbia.

See "What if Roe Fell (https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell)."

Further, it would be entirely possible for other states to pass legislation that legalizes abortion per a revision in those states' respective constitutions (or codification).

Please note that Amy Coney Barrett has indicated that she subscribes to the doctrine of stare decisis, and has further indicated that she does not believe that Roe (or Casey) will ever be overturned; she said the only future argument would be as to whether or not the federal government has a responsibility to pay for abortions, which is not covered by Roe or Casey. Coney Barrett doesn't like late-term abortions, but both Roe and Casey enable states to limit or ban late-term abortions, which pro-life people so conveniently fail to mention (or just don't know, since they don't sit down and READ Roe or Casey, which of course isn't the case with Coney Barrett but she would appeal to pro-life voters by vocalizing opposition to late-term abortions, which people also fail to mention are extremely rare and damned near unobtainable).

Note that Coney Barrett, like Clarence Thomas, is NO friend to qualified immunity (https://reason.com/2020/09/23/amy-coney-barrett-demolishes-the-qualified-immunity-claim-of-a-detective-who-framed-a-man-for-murder/), nor does she always side with the government and the prosecutors (https://reason.com/2020/09/21/scotus-contender-amy-coney-barretts-mixed-record-in-criminal-cases/).

Edit: Coney Barrett hates the ACA, but that doesn’t mean she would be able to get rid of it (depends on the cases against it). This conservative court doesn’t look good for universal healthcare, though.

GulDukat
09-25-2020, 04:59 PM
Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg’s Seat on the Supreme Court (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html)

ETA--looks like it's not 100% confirmed, but looking like it will be her.

Jinsai
09-25-2020, 06:06 PM
it's gonna be her, unless they find some horrifying skeleton in her closet during this rushed vetting process.

zero
09-25-2020, 06:23 PM
it's gonna be her, unless they find some horrifying skeleton in her closet during this rushed vetting process.

Everyone has a closet full of skeletons. It's the imperfect nature of human existence. We all have flaws. And the magnitude of the flaws we harbor is subject to interpretation. But she sure seems young for filling this position. Much younger than I am, although I suppose that no longer has much relevance. Her age could portend a very long tenure.

Jinsai
09-25-2020, 07:35 PM
Everyone has a closet full of skeletons. It's the imperfect nature of human existence. We all have flaws. And the magnitude of the flaws we harbor is subject to interpretation. But she sure seems young for filling this position. Much younger than I am, although I suppose that no longer has much relevance. Her age could portend a very long tenure.


That's the appeal... it's why she's so young, and Kavanaugh was young too. It's not a coincidence. You'll be living with these decisions for the rest of your life.

"BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T LIKE HILLARY! AND SHE HAD EMAILS OR SOMETHING!!!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!"

allegro
09-25-2020, 10:15 PM
Justice Kagan was appointed to the SCOTUS at 50.

Justice Sotomayor was appointed to the SCOTUS at 55.

Volk
09-26-2020, 04:42 AM
god motherfucking jesus shit dicks damnit fuck.

GulDukat
09-26-2020, 07:54 AM
I think that our best hope at this point is that more Supreme Court Justices are added to offset the 6-3 super majority that the conservatives are about to have. Let's hope for a massive blue-wave in November.

VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!
VOTE!

Jinsai
09-26-2020, 10:23 AM
Justice Kagan was appointed to the SCOTUS at 50.

Justice Sotomayor was appointed to the SCOTUS at 55.

Same strategy, same reasoning behind it. You don't nominate a very old Justice for that reason. I think RBG was 60 when she was appointed?

All I'm saying is that I am hearing way too many people underestimating the importance of the Supreme Court, just like they did in 2016, and they're these idealists whining into the void about the impotency of incrementalism... If Hillary FUCKING Clinton was elected, we at least wouldn't be looking at this aspect to the insanity.

allegro
09-26-2020, 10:58 AM
Same strategy, same reasoning behind it. You don't nominate a very old Justice for that reason. I think RBG was 60 when she was appointed?

All I'm saying is that I am hearing way too many people underestimating the importance of the Supreme Court, just like they did in 2016, and they're these idealists whining into the void about the impotency of incrementalism... If Hillary FUCKING Clinton was elected, we at least wouldn't be looking at this aspect to the insanity.

Yup, absolutely.

GulDukat
09-26-2020, 11:12 AM
Same strategy, same reasoning behind it. You don't nominate a very old Justice for that reason. I think RBG was 60 when she was appointed?

All I'm saying is that I am hearing way too many people underestimating the importance of the Supreme Court, just like they did in 2016, and they're these idealists whining into the void about the impotency of incrementalism... If Hillary FUCKING Clinton was elected, we at least wouldn't be looking at this aspect to the insanity.

I get pissed when I hear some people say "(Clinton/Biden) hasn't earned my vote. So I'm either going to vote for (Stein, Hawkins) instead." Just think of The Supreme Court, ffs.

Jinsai
09-26-2020, 11:38 AM
she's got Michelle Bachmann eyes... yeah, I'm not feeling this.

sweeterthan
09-26-2020, 11:40 AM
she's got Michelle Bachmann eyes... yeah, I'm not feeling this.

i try not to judge based on looks but i see what youíre saying.

ltrandazzo
09-27-2020, 09:48 AM
I'm not going to share that fucking Notorious ACB shirt, but my god, what a thirsty fucking clown thing to do. We gotta get as many of these fuckers out of office as we can.

allegate
09-29-2020, 05:10 PM
Everyone has a closet full of skeletons. It's the imperfect nature of human existence. We all have flaws. And the magnitude of the flaws we harbor is subject to interpretation. But she sure seems young for filling this position. Much younger than I am, although I suppose that no longer has much relevance. Her age could portend a very long tenure.
Is it any weirder than appointing a Chief Justice? I seem to recall that being a point of contention.

https://twitter.com/ryanbernsten/status/1309966319027212294?s=20

Jinsai
09-29-2020, 05:56 PM
well, while on one hand I think a SCOTUS nominee should be able to pronounce "poignant," I am not gonna die on that hill

GulDukat
10-13-2020, 08:20 PM
Amy Coney Barrett refuses to answer whether presidents should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. (https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/watch/amy-coney-barrett-refuses-to-answer-whether-presidents-should-commit-to-a-peaceful-transfer-of-power-93783621586?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_hb&fbclid=IwAR2U0JqwRlhB0kjzchJhBtnSds8MxqtUhopzGbpzM 52w5T_p5roDa0G48K0)

versusreality
10-13-2020, 08:34 PM
of course she doesn't commit.

she knows what she plans on doing.

probably part of the deal she struck when Trump "interviewed" her for the job.

really really hope there's a strong democrat voter turnout in texas and florida. I don't trust the governors of either state and expect some bs to happen.

onthewall2983
10-17-2020, 11:23 AM
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/121545003_3726145274064708_226026765026869475_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=T1MDaRpGKOAAX9DjI8u&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=e7618d523d5ebddbcfeb4623534cfc31&oe=5FB1BA5F

allegate
10-19-2020, 10:22 AM
https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1318204330554646529?s=20

The most confusing thing I've read so far today.

botley
10-19-2020, 06:59 PM
1318322051690733569

Fucking finally. I hope this shit works!

hellospaceboy
10-27-2020, 08:40 AM
These fuckers did it...

cdm
10-27-2020, 08:59 AM
These fuckers did it...

Win presidency.
Win Senate.
Eliminate filibuster.
Expand to 13.
Force Breyer to retire.
DC & PR statehood.
Do it all in 2021. No waffling. Playing nice doesn't work anymore and that should be the party line and not some radical left <gasp!> <clutch pearls!> pipe dream. Do the above and ensure no GOP majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future. Only then can we start getting shit done.

allegate
10-27-2020, 02:26 PM
https://twitter.com/lindyli/status/1321129139701731328?s=20

allegro
10-27-2020, 10:45 PM
Win presidency.
Win Senate.
Eliminate filibuster.
Expand to 13.
Force Breyer to retire.
DC & PR statehood.
Do it all in 2021. No waffling. Playing nice doesn't work anymore and that should be the party line and not some radical left <gasp!> <clutch pearls!> pipe dream. Do the above and ensure no GOP majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future. Only then can we start getting shit done.

I'll go further.

Expand Federal Circuit to 15 (it's currently 13, packed with Republican-appointed justices, too small), appoint additional Justices.

Expand SCOTUS to 15.

cdm
10-28-2020, 09:02 AM
I'll go further.

I'll allow it.

bobbie solo
11-03-2020, 02:56 AM
Win presidency.
Win Senate.
Eliminate filibuster.
Expand to 13.
Force Breyer to retire.
DC & PR statehood.
Do it all in 2021. No waffling. Playing nice doesn't work anymore and that should be the party line and not some radical left <gasp!> <clutch pearls!> pipe dream. Do the above and ensure no GOP majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future. Only then can we start getting shit done.

They will only POSSIBLY do the filibuster and DC & PR statehood. Current Dem leadership clearly does not have the will for court reform in any way. They are absolutely terrible and spineless. They could have blocked Barrett at least for the rest of the year, if not for good, and CHOSE not to do the aggressive tactics they could have employed to do so. Feckless, the lot of them. Schumer and Pelosi needed to be catapulted into the sun.

ltrandazzo
11-03-2020, 06:06 AM
They will only POSSIBLY do the filibuster and DC & PR statehood. Current Dem leadership clearly does not have the will for court reform in any way. They are absolutely terrible and spineless. They could have blocked Barrett at least for the rest of the year, if not for good, and CHOSE not to do the aggressive tactics they could have employed to do so. Feckless, the lot of them. Schumer and Pelosi needed to be catapulted into the sun.

They can’t even do statehood with the eliminated filibuster because the 6-3 conservative court will strike down every bit of legislation after the GOP challenges. Expand the court and rebalance it.

allegro
11-03-2020, 01:27 PM
The Senate Dems tried blocking Barrett. (The House can't do shit, they have zero Constitutional power re SCOTUS.)

The Senate Dems didn't show up for the vote, so the Senate wouldn't have quorum. The Republicans proceeded ANYWAY, without quorum. Which the Republicans did with Kavanaugh.

https://www.justsecurity.org/72521/senate-procedures-offer-no-hope-for-dems-on-supreme-court-nominee/

The time to block a Republican SCOTUS pick was the 2016 Presidential election.

burnmotherfucker!
11-04-2020, 06:20 PM
All this talk of stacking the court seems pretty unlikely now. This election is a shitshow. "We" now know there really is 1/2 of the country that is dumb/evil enough to want Trump after these 4 years. Also, if Biden wins and the republicans hold the senate it pretty much guarantees no Biden court appointee sees the bench. You think a 6-3 majority is bad? Wait til 2024 when Trump/his daughter runs again and wins the senate so they can go ahead and get a 9-0 majority.

allegro
11-04-2020, 06:28 PM
All this talk of stacking the court seems pretty unlikely now. This election is a shitshow. "We" now know there really is 1/2 of the country that is dumb/evil enough to want Trump after these 4 years. Also, if Biden wins and the republicans hold the senate it pretty much guarantees no Biden court appointee sees the bench. You think a 6-3 majority is bad? Wait til 2024 when Trump/his daughter runs again and wins the senate so they can go ahead and get a 9-0 majority.

Not necessarily. Not all the Senate race votes have been counted. The GOP advantage has greatly narrowed.

And there’s another Senate election in two years, with a BUNCH of GOP seats up for grabs.

I suspect that it laws will be passed that will effectively neuter the courts, putting the courts in an “advisory” position instead of an “executive” position (which is how it should be and was intended). This is especially needed now re SCOTUS.

SCOTUS used to be honorable and non-partisan and neutral and was used only as a last resort to interpret law.

Now, SCOTUS is used as a legislative body, a political body, a leverage tool. It defies the founders’ intentions and the balance of power.

burnmotherfucker!
11-04-2020, 06:49 PM
I really hope the senate goes blue, that would make things much easier. But nothing about this election makes me think dems will get enough turnout in 2022. And Trump isn't going to just go away like we're used to seeing with presidents. He realizes the power he has through social media. He will be louder than ever and while you and I may not care, his base isn't going anywhere. He will either run in 2024 or hand pick one of his family members to do it for him. Because of his ability to turn out voters, what's left of the republican party will allow it, they'll continue to bend over for him.

And the SC won't prevent a dem administration from passing legislation. But it will cripple them in that they wont be able to challenge any republican legislation thats been passed. And anything the dems do get done will easily be torn apart the next time republicans hold power. Not to mention they have two months now to strip healthcare with their stacked court. I hope I'm wrong about every bit of this.

botley
04-14-2021, 06:41 PM
Itshappening.gif https://theintercept.com/2021/04/14/house-and-senate-democrats-plan-bill-to-add-four-justices-to-supreme-court/

allegro
04-15-2021, 07:44 AM
Itshappening.gif https://theintercept.com/2021/04/14/house-and-senate-democrats-plan-bill-to-add-four-justices-to-supreme-court/

Not if Joe Manchin can help it.

allegate
09-13-2021, 12:10 PM
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1437403962093842445

Breaking News: the world exhausted its supply of irony today.