Biden prepping to endorse sweeping changes to Supreme Court

we're 110 days from the Nov election.

• in 2020, the polls indicate a Trump win and a red wave in both chambers Congress
  • Biden went on to defeat Trump easily
  • GOP
    • eeked out a narrow house majority
    • in the Senate, gained 1 seat, lost 4 seats, including both Georgia seats

• in 2016, the polls show Hillary way ahead of Trump
  • so much so, that Hillary diverted most of her campaign teams in the swing states to focus much more on Florida

​

 

Completely inaccurate. The process to change the Constitution is the Amendment process, over which the Supreme Court has no say whatsoever. The two examples you referenced were changed by the 13th and 19th Amendments.

The power to amend lies with Congress and State legislatures (or referendums by the people of the states).

The court merely interprets what the Constitution has to say about any particular law. The Presidential immunity decision should not have been at all surprising to anyone with knowledge of the common law system.

 

Anything is possible, but the Republican House Members and Senators would be quite foolish to pass compromise legislation on the basis that all current polling is wrong and that actually the Democrats will control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Is there a COVID level event coming between now and November? Maybe.

 

First, you're voting for a guy with no chance of winning so I'll take that prediction with a grain of salt.

Second, do you honestly believe these gifts or bribes however you choose to phrase them would be given to these justices if they weren't affecting decisions? If they don't make a difference why are so many conservative billionaires bending over backwards to provide them with such a lavish lifestyle?

Third, and why I would never bet with a lawyer is you don't breakdown what you mean by "Democracy won't end." You can have a puppet government Congress/Executive/Judicial laid out exactly like with ours and have a dictator "president" at the helm if the other branches allow it. Hell China and Russia hold elections too, have courts of law, etc. and they sure aren't bastions of freedom and independent thought...

 

The criticism of Roe v Wade was not that it should be overturned, but rather it was too narrow and needed to be expanded. I am sure you can cherry pick pro-life legal scholars who will say it was on shaky ground, but not many would agree with you here.

 

no, the criticism of Roe v Wade is that is was poorly argued and wrongly justified.

https://scholarship.law.missouri.ed...eferer=&httpsredir=1&article=3681&context=mlr

 

It should have been done under the equal protections clause and not as patient-doctor privacy.

That doesn't mean it should have been completely overturned.

 

this then would be an alternate universe hypothetical

in which case this conclusion would not follow

 

You can still uphold the right without overturning it. They just wanted to overturn it.

This court is tarnished politically as one of the judges hates liberals by his own admission, and 3 others were appointed specifically to overturn the decision. So given that kind of bias, it was going to get overturned no matter what.

By putting an agenda for justices and picking ones that would tow the party line, the SCOTUS is now a political entity. It's no longer valid. The court should just be dismantled.

 

this makes no sense. They overturned it for exactly the reasons legal scholars had identified as problematic for 45+ years. This was not some sort of psycho MAGA "let's just screw the libs" type irrationally emotional act. This was a legal decision supported with reasoning. Go ahead and disagree with the reasoning, or attempt to show where the reasoning fails, but it is silly to make an assertion like "They just wanted to overturn it."

 

Lawyers can make anything up. They are basically leeches on society.

 

My vote and my prediction are not convergent.

Of course I do. I give a ton without expectation of return. Can you point to any decision where Thomas or Alito has reversed themselves after receiving a gift from someone who would benefit from said reversal?

I have broken it down multiple times, but the bet would be that I win if we still have three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), the Executive and Legislative branches are still elected under our current scheme (or something more populist, eg. I would win if they eliminated the electoral college and went to a popular vote), and there is a contested election in 2028 (both major parties are allowed to run a candidate and there are reasonable rules such that we don't see a Saddam style election where the winner had "99%" of the vote).

 

I don't understand why you'd win the bet at the beginning of full control when democracy would be openly challenged after a peaceful transfer of power doesn't happen.

 

I don't understand your objection. Either the country continues in largely the same form as now or it doesn't. For example, if the same bet had been made in July of 2020, I would have won because we ended up in January of 2021 with the same form of government and a contested election.

 

The bet wasn't made in 2020.

While his actions had consequences, the repercussions for directly meddling with election results and the certification process has been marginal, at best.

Prosecution is not a deterrent anymore when judiciary became an enabler.

If I were to take the bet, I'd agree on the condition of the oppo party regaining control in a free and fair election. But I haven't been making claims of democracy being at stake so it'd have to be higher odds.

 

Are you saying that the Founding Fathers lacked the knowledge of the common law system?

 

Since you haven't been making claims of democracy being at stake, you are not the intended opponent.

Quite the opposite. I am saying they were quite familiar with the common law system and thus felt no need to spell out sovereign immunity, legislative immunity, presidential immunity, or judicial immunity. Those were a given in 1789.

 

It was exactly that. Like many of their other decision, they just find a rationale to fit whatever it is they want to do.

 

Democracy doesn't end with the institutions going away. All the stuff is there. It's just a sham and a shell of what it used to be. Judges rule the way they are told. Elections are fixed to get the right result.

 

Since I explicitly said a Saddam Hussein style fixed election would not count as a win for me, your objection seems off the mark.