I think we're going to see that anyway. I mean, a debate about ACA and Roe, the hearings will be public as well and the Democrats would be wise to again...show that the GOP is trying to take away women's rights and destroy healthcare. I mean, the GOP has said these are its goals over and over again but apparently for people things have to be said 20x for it to get through to them. This is going to be easy to do with Amy, not so much with Lagoa because we don't really know where she stands on some things. I Would not be surprised if she is more socially left than people expect, in fact, a lot of conservative groups do not want her to be picked as they are worried that she might be more socially liberal and could be more of a swing voter once put on. Amy is an extremist though, I think having Kamala and others question her before election day could help get key demos out to vote.
Thinking about this more, Dems don't have the ground game to pack the courts. What are the Dem's Roe v Wade? They might've had one if Roberts struck down Obamacare or maybe even DACA (nah). I give a **** about Citizen's United, but that's not a (spiritual) mouth to feed kind of issue that ignites and rallies people. Nope, gotta do baby steps like the more reasonable posters are saying. Fill and expand judicial appointments. Override the filibuster to pass laws and wait for the court strikedown to happen. That'll take another five to ten years before libs are motivated enough to build an apparatus the Cons have built since the 70s. I'm thinking Dems are more of the revolty type though... When people say "the Republicans Stole Obama's seat", that's either willful ignorance or pandering to the ignorant.
All I'm going to say to this post is what I've been saying the past 4 years. One day, the Democrats are going to have power. That could be in a few months. You better hope mercy and compromise is shown because the GOP has shown 0. Mitch warned Reid and the Democrats are warning Mitch, and the current batch of upcoming Democrats are more to the left than the past batch. Also, all this talk of precedent ignores that this would be the fastest confirmation ever. I really don't want to hear Republicans talk about precedent as they are doing this.
Honestly, the more I think about the last 3-4 years and what I know about the current state of the Republican party, the more it seems sensible to try and expand the Supreme Court. However, discretion should prevail, and you are right that the Democrats will not have the support from the Senate to do that. If they had 54-55 votes in the Senate then it would be a real possibility. As it is, they will likely end up with 50-51. Long term, upping the judicial appointments in federal court and hammering home the right for statehood to DC is a far better outcome. Also, something to consider is that every time a conservative court decided to make a major ruling that curtails civil rights, the Republican party will pay for it at the ballot box. If the USSC decides to do away with abortion, the cost for the political party will be massive.
You are correct that the Democrats have drifted WAY to the left and would do as you are saying regardless of what happens here with this SOCTUS seat the next time they have power. They have already talked about it even before RBG passed away. They have talked about increasing the number of states solely to increase the number of Senators knowing the places they are wanting to make states will likely vote for Democrats. They have also talked about about increasing the number of SCOTUS judges before RBG passed away to pack the court. Again these were ideas brought up PRIOR to RBG's death.
I will say it would not surprise me at all to see Roberts side with the left quite a bit after this. He already has a history of doing it.
Brought up by who and in what context? Because a lot of times these things are bought up by people that have no power. Biden already said he's not for that for example. Did Obama say it? Schumer? Pelosi? Or was it Michael Moore?
Also @cml750 a lot of the democratic base is more aggressive, but this did not come out of nowhere. Again, no compromise given from the other side. Reid didn't eliminate the filibuster because it was some random idea, he did it because the GOP decided they would not compromise and that they would not give an inch. So he went nuclear. Don't be surprised if the Democrats win, have complete power, and go nuclear. I really don't want to hear any crying about it, your side denied compromise under Mitch and it's made a lot of democrats seek for blood because we fear what will happen if your side gets power again and many of us do not want your bible to be the constitution and many of us see the world literally on fire and want to do something about it.
The fact that you are blaming this on Democrats shows you simply are propping up your own team's lack of integrity.
What do you think of this idea? Talk radio legend Rush Limbaugh urged Republicans to scrap the confirmation process for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee so that whomever is selected can avoid being “Kavanaugh'd” by the left. “The Judiciary Committee does not have to do its thing. It’s become a tradition but it’s not a requirement and since Trump has already driven them crazy... long before today, they are crazy,” Limbaugh said on Monday, referring to Democrats. “Why not just blow up another tradition?”
What if the party installs its judges and loyalists to close off access to the ballot box? Look at Wisconsin, it is a majority democratic state with a republican gerrymandered supermajority, blessed by the US Supreme Court and Republican justices. How do you make them pay at the ballot box when you win all the elections but the game is entirely rigged against you? Like literally the whole animating factor aroudn the federalist society isn't ****ing abortion, like you see in the media - it's the restriction of voting rights. John Roberts is a proclaimed enemy of voting rights, he has done this his entire career. Would John Roberts burn a cross on somebody's lawn? No. Would he sanction a bunch of racists as they closed all the polling stations in black neighborhood and implemented ridiculous laws? Yes, we know becuase he has done it and continues to do it And your remedy - just vote out the people who rig the voting?. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Don't worry, once we break the dam and expand the senate the same thing happens. What will happen, you say, Republicans will create more states? Great. Lots of more equally sized states is a good thing for democracy as a whole Your own statement once again invalidates itself. It worked for Mithc Mcconnell. Time to make it work for not Mitch McConnell. No it doesn't say that, and no, you can't argue that a lifetime appointment is inviolable but also can be contracted away at whim. It can't be until the person is dead, if I accept your hypothesis. But anyway you could easily draw the statute to convert them to life appointments in the alternative. Congress controls the structure ofthe courts, not just the Senate. Thats the one thing that is a billion times more clear than any nebulous argument about term limits And frankly if escalation happens. GREAT! THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD THING TO HAVE MORE JUDGES TO TRY CASES WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH If you're not going to actually try to make the country governable we shouldn't even try. This is just fainting couch type bullshit. The GOP is already a racist authoritarian black hole that will do anything and everything to illegitimately hold on to power - your threat of worse consequences when they are already engaged in treason with regard to Russia, the transformationof the DOJ into a personal hit squad, the destruction of expertise at all levels, the bankrupting and pillaging of the government and unapologetic corruption, 200,000 dead, , and honestly so many bad things I can't even list them all. The status quo is the constitutional crisis But a minor structural change by the Democrats is inadvisable because it might cause them to act worse? Simply not possible, there is no bottom and no line they won't cross - THIS IS CLEAR - and even if so that's some Neville chamberlain bullshit. Your calculus is also wrong. Since the GOP is electorally insulated from the full ramifications of it's bad acts, and has demonstrated that they will literally kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, rig elections with Vladimir Putin, etc ad nauseum - changing the rules is literally the only remedy that will make them feel the pain. I have no idea why people who have never tried a case in federal courts and who don't know anything about it are now wikipedia experts on federal court caseload statistics. Increasing the amount of judges at all levels is win-win. You're just pissed off that a good policy aligns with my political preference... that's some big fat baby ****, grow up man. It's still a good policy and has been needed since the 70s or 80s. Most practicing lawyers would agree and it actually costs a lot of them money.
It is time for the Congress to reign in the S. Ct. one way or another: term limits or packing. More radically and even troubling The President and Congress have the power to just view the S. Ct. opinions as advisory as Lincoln did when he ignored Dred Scott and freed the Slaves during the Civil War. https://theweek.com/articles/938865/democrats-have-better-option-than-court-packingIt Actual judicial review was a product of a cynical power grab from Chief Justice John Marshall, who simply asserted out of nothing in Marbury vs. Madison that the court could overturn legislation — but did it in a way to benefit incoming president Thomas Jefferson politically, so as to neutralize his objection to the principle. Jefferson famously hated judicial review. In one letter, he said it is "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so." T
My goodness I enjoy watching angry liberals like SamFisher be utterly frustrated by the strength of our Constitution. No matter how hard liberals try to skirt the rules for political gain (power), the Founding Fathers were a step ahead of them 230+ years ago! Their brilliance amazes me with each passing day. Nominate and confirm without delay or apology.
Sam - I'm concerned about your mental health and stress level. I'd encourage you to take a break to gather yourself. Have a nice train ride home tonight back to New Jersey, and take a leisurely walk.
You know, if Hillary had won the Electoral College, maybe she could've hung a moist dog turd around Limbaugh's neck rather than the Presidential Medal of Propagan---er, Freedom.
[ That's the thing. They will not pay for it at the ballot box in a way that is commensurate with the harm Look at Wisconsin. It is a 50-50 state where the Republicans locked in control via gerrymandering. The leg pursues profoundly unpopular policies that salt the earth and rig the game, but they are basically unaccountable because it's impossible for them to lose their majority. They'll lose some seats. Maybe control of the Senate for 2 years, but that's it. The only way to make them pay is to change the rules that are currently broken
Please do break up Texas. Threatening to throw the Democrats into the briar patch of less diluted votes for highly populated states is not scary at all and good for democracy.
