I think that is a losing issue, people not enough people care about the SC to support shutting down the gov and for how long? That could affect the race IMO.
I mean I kinda want to keep our fire hypothetical liberal legislation and that is going to be more difficult with a stacked Conservative court
I tend to agree...Republicans can get away with it...because their supporters tend to favor limited government. Democrats can't really get away with it, especially with so many unemployed out there that need assistance at the moment. Honestly, they should do the opposite...come to the table and start trying to work out a stimulus package with Republicans that can get out before the election. Force the Senate to work on that as well...the more you can get them caught up in the process...the more time goes by and you can at least push the nomination to after the election.
I didn't say legislation needs to be approved by the Supreme Court. But the Court can hear and act on lawsuits to block legislation. And a 6-3 court can and will block any legislation involving choice and affordable care. And if a state enacts legislation to limit access to abortions, the only recourse is taking that state to court.
They've watched Trump's response to McCain's thumb's down. I doubt any of the Republican senators short of maybe Romney are willing to take the smoke that Trump will dump on them, even if they are lame ducks.
Link? When has the SC blocked legislation before it was made into law? I have no idea what I said about abortions has to do with this. Yes some states will outlaw abortions but it will not be outlawed for everybody.
Not exactly. If parts of the ACA are defeated parts can still be passed as separate legislation. The argument going before the court is that the ACA is bundled together so if the mandate part isn't in place the whole thing should fall. If that's the case then a new law could be passed with a different financing mechanism. The USSC wields a lot of power but it's not an oligarchy of 9 people. There are ways to get around rulings.
Some of you really need to go back to US Government 101. Clearly there is a difference between how the government is run vs how some of you think the government should run. If one does not like our government format, they should consider becoming a citizen of a different country. That said, I do think most of us agree the life time appointment of a SCOTUS justice is an issue.
Yes of course I will personally be responsible for ending health insurance because I said on the internet I'm not for stacking the court. Yes that makes perfect sense. Leaving hyperbole aside similar arguments were made by Democrats regarding ending the filibuster on appointments and things only got worse. First there is no certainty that a 6-3 conservative court will actually end abortion given that we've had a conservative majority for a long time and abortion still is legal in the US. There is no guarantee that a new majority will vote to end the ACA. Even if those do as stated there are other ways of getting around court rulings through legislation. If you are still counting on the court and stacking it is the solution that will only last until the next time the Senate and Presidency changes. Once we open the court size again for partisan political expediency there is no telling where that ends up. In the whole history of the US it has only changed size 3 times and not since 1835 for good reasons. Not even FDR could change it. That is for good reason. Certainty on the size of the court is essential for the legal system. If the view is that the court might change size every few years legal decisions could be called into question based on how big the court was at the time.
Imagine if they at least had a retirement age or term limits, you wouldn’t unexpectedly lurch into political crisis every time one of them dies. reminder though that Scalia snd RBG were buddies. Maybe they had a pact to go out on their shields.
You could try, well, citizens of that state could try, but incumbents have a huge advantage and its unlikely that process would succeed.
Of course that applies to other judgeships and really any appointments that require Senate confirmation. It also applies to the Presidential election. None of this is going to change anytime soon. There's been talk about changing the Electoral College which hasn't gotten very far and there is even less talk about taking away Senators from small states. Given both will take Constitutional Amendments and the states compact that is being talked about for the electoral college is likely to run into some serious legal hurdles. This is an issue right now because of partisanship and that the Republican party dominates rural area. That hasn't always been the case and Democrats can and have won rural states. Progressives have won rural states and there was a time when states like Kansas were more progressive than NY and CA. Things can change. I don't think though that changing things in ways that greatly reduce the power of the small rural states will bring us more to the middle ground. I think any serious attempt to amend the Constitution to take away Electoral votes and / or Senate seats from smaller rural states will lead to a civil war.
I very well understand the context of the SC ruling on the ACA. If the mandate was deemed illegal, the core aspect of the ACA falls apart. How are you going to properly fund for pre-existing conditions? You need healthy people in a private insurance market so private companies can still be profitable when covering pre-existing conditions. I mean this is why I think private health insurance is dumb but the SC had the power to make the ACA ineffective.
The system currently disproportionately makes urban voters heard less. The current system places undue influence from rural voters.
