Could those corn fields survive without corn subsidies paid with tax payer money mostly paid by blue urban economic hubs?
I told you I would be in favor of this, full stop. in fact, surprising even myself, I guess I posted here 4 years ago that same sentiment. But anyway considering that the liberals haven't really controlled the court for the entirety of your and my natural life despite dominating presidential elections since 1992 maybe is indicative that some structural reform is warranted. I'm not that young. Maybe I just want it because a more diluted judiciary is less susceptible to minority rule? What is wrong with that? Who cares about the alternative universe where authoritarian Democrats try to appoint Michael Moore as chief justice? I live in this one, a rigged judiciary is a wrong that can be righted by an act of Congress. I guess this makes me a small d democrat as well as a big D democrat. Im not going to apologise for having a big or small d No it will not - the composition of courts is entirely left up to congress. If they want to pass an act adding temporary judges to the Supreme Court , that's entirely within Article 3. Maybe you can argue they can't remove a judge other than by impeachment, so they can't end Clarence Thomas term next year. Ok fine, this is debatable but literally nothing stops them from adding more, in any fashion they choose They could add 100 new life appointments tomorrow. They could also limit the supreme court's jurisdiction so it couldn't even review the act doing it. Congress sets the rules for the judiciary. It's hardly a matter of partisan opinion that federal courts move slowly and suffer from lack of judges to decide cases. You can tape an entire season of the people's court in the time it takes to get through initial scheduling in most cases. The US judicial conference recommends adding more judges every year, but the last round of expansion was 30 years ago and there are 20-30% more cases annually.
@Commodore -- congrats on your glee and all with Lindsayz hypocrisy, but... Uh, care to explain to the BBS community what that graphic means? It reads as "**** you >50% who don't agree with this. we're ready to eat hotdogs and shoot you." But, I'm hoping you are implying something different? Lindsey Graham will rot in hell, if it exists.
Yes it's rhetorical but hyperbole isn't always effective rhetoric. You're were trying to lay a guilt trip and I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of such a a tactic. Except the court had a conservative majority even before Roberts and Rhenquist was far more of an ideologue than Roberts and far less interested in compromise. Also as stated there are ways around the USSC. I've already stated how many ways there are if the court rules against the ACA. Except that once the door is opened to changing the number of the court any future Senate can also change the number. Honestly it's an odd argument considering you opposed impeachment because it would invite further abuse of power yet support enlarging the court expecting that the other side won't enlarge it at some future date for their own benefit or shrink it.
This thread has gone from discussing the life and death of Ginsburg, to the makeup of the courts to now that rural states don't matter. Votes work best when those can be leveraged in blocks. The argument for unions is acting in a collective they can negotiate for more power. Obviously states with large population leverage their votes for more power while small states can't. That was exactly the dilemma that faced the founders. The argument yourself and others are making is that it doesn't matter and even so far as that rural areas add nothing to economy. As someone who lives in a state with a very profound rural urban split the distribution of power between the Twin Cities and the rest of the Minnesota is a big issue. Rural Minnesotans frequently argue that the state doesn't care as much about them as the Twin Cities. That is in many ways similar to the country as a whole. And true many citizens can't move and I'm not saying everyone can or should but if there wasn't as much movement of people CO and VA would still be red states and AZ and TX would not be changing. People do move but they also change. Anyway this debate is purely theoretical. People have been trying for decades to get rid of the Electoral College and there is no way a majority of states will agree to removing the amount of Senators that states get.
?? Do you think Amazon, who has taken billions in tax subsides and uses a good fair share of the road infrastructure, could survive w/out their subsides? The answer is of course. The consumer would just pay more.
You must've missed my later post as I did give you credit for consistency. As in 2016 if the court was expanded the Republicans controlled the Senate which would've led to possibly more conservative justices. True and Clinton appointed to two justices. Since 2000 though Democrats only controlled the Presidency 8 years but also only controlled the Senate 6 years and only 2 years when there was a Democratic president. If the Democrats could've had a Senate majority in 2016, 2018 or now we wouldn't be in this situation. The Presidency is important but the Senate is almost as important. Again all of y'all making this message just seem to forget that the number can change. Once this precedent get's set the number of Justices can change on who controls Senate. Your idea of a diluted judiciary could be erased the next Republican senate. The could just as easily decide to reduce the USSC back to 5 justices. It often seems to me these type of debates about changing rules the main argument for them is short term expediency. The term of the justices is set by the Constitution. Again they could add a 100 Justices the next Senate could reduce it to 3. I don't think that's a good way of instilling trust in our judiciary just changing the number of Justices depending on what party is in power. More importantly though yes Congress does have ways around it. I've pointed that out several times. A 6-3 conservative makes things harder from a liberal point of view but not impossible. My understanding is a lot of the slowness had to do with McConnell holding up appointments during Obama which created a back log with many courts being understaffed. Besides even if you might think that more judges are needed the number can always be made less too.
No, my intention was not to lay a guilt trip on you but to point out the coldness of your perspective by pushing you to see the human toll. I think I have a clearer understanding of what I was in my head than you do with all due respect. The Rhenquist court was balanced a bit by Kennedy. That court did tremendous amounts of damage by the way - to use it as an example doesn't support your case. It handed Bush the presidency by eliminating ballots that Florida would have counted, and it also made the infamous Citizens United decision which opened the floodgate of money into elections forever changing our country and its political system. Now you are talking about 6 conservative justices, with 5 of them far right essentially giving Republicans the ability to overrule any law Democrats pass or any EO written by Biden. And they will use that power. You say there are ways around ACA - but the SCOTUS can rule the entire law is void and toss it out. There is no way around that. They have that power, and have shown they will push a right-wing agenda. As I just stated, the Dems can use it as leverage to pass legislation to prevent future changes and restore the filibuster. But if youhave one party committed to politicizing the Supreme Court and every other institution, it can not be stopped. The Dems can either be passive and appeasing which you are proposing, but that will result in Republicans ultimately setting up an apartheid type gov't with a weak opposition, or it can fight fire with fire. Yes, it will rip everything apart. It may very well come back to haunt them and lead to a cycle of ever-expanding SCOTUS. But that bridge has been crossed and it's up to Republicans to repair it now not just the Dems.
I don't forget this at all. In fact if you actually valued normative behavior you would not be as passive about letting bad actors abuse them, ignore them and pay no penalty. Basically that leads to instability and bloodshed. When actors act badly they need to be punished. This is the punishment. But anyway, let's break down some of your objection: First, assuming arguendo that lifetime appointments can't be rescinded (this is by no means clear, but whatever), then by your own logic the court can't contract back down, so your only fear is ludicrously enlarged courts...who cares? I don't. Feel free to bump this post of it happens. Second even if it could be altered again fine. This assumes Republicans can get the votes. Republicans can't get the votes now to win national elections, being saved only by the Senate's undemocratic makeup, and it's only getting worse which is why they are now the autocracy party. This is why installing judges like John Roberts who help them rig the game is important to them. Letting them lock in their judges makes it stay that way - diluting their judges gives us a chance. You can pretty much kiss climate change and democracy goodbye if you keep the current makeup, and we don't have a 20 year window for either of those things. The long term plan - expand the courts, expand the Senate, give progressive politics a fair shake and not a rigged game. The autocrats have a long term plan: obstruct when out of power, salt the earth when in power, always do enough to hold on to power regardless of the consequences by installing loyalists to ensure their return to power. Pay modest penalties if overreach, but repeat the cycle until you have obtained total power. What's your long term plan for when the Voting Rights Act is declared unconstitutional? What's your long term plan to counter the above? I sat take out the mechanisms that help them rig the game when you have a chance. Which is in January or never. Let's be honest, your natural risk aversion means that you're the one with the short term view here. In the long term if you actually support democracy, things have to change, I'm hardly the first to suggest this. It has very little to do with that. The federal bench has been understaffed for decades, since before McConnell was ever even in Congress. Mass tort litigation is blamed but the real issue is that we've added 100 million more Americans since 1990 and 0 new judges. And it pervades all levels. District court cases take forever. Appellate cases tack years on. The 9th circuit has to cover The Supreme Court is even worse. An expanded SCT could use smaller panels and rehear en banc and defuses the supreme court as a political prize and instead - resolve appellate questions, what it is a actually supposed to do. All levels need more judges it's not a hard or even a close question. Expanding the courts is a literal win-win situation for everybody. For judges, for litigants, for Congress - it's just good public policy. It's bad policy for autocrats. It's bad for legal fees if justice were more efficient. That's a risk I'm willing to live with.
republicans have already voted to approve the unknown justice nominee already, because, party over country...
Exactly. And since the three most recent far right wing justices (with lifetime appointments) are in their early fifties (or younger, if trump chooses the 38 year old), this extreme ideological imbalance will last through at least the next two presidential terms and likely longer. Since republicans blocked Garland and many of Obama's lower court nominees, the ideological imbalance permeates the judicial system. republicans have shown no interest in protecting American institutions, especially the governing processes. Expecting the opposing political side to "follow the rules" guarantees that republicans will simply build upon what worked for them. Expecting them to say "gee, I guess we will play by the rules now" is simply naïve and unrealistic.
ACB would be a tremendous pick. A strong defender of the constitution, very young, and a woman of faith. We would be lucky to have her.
***BREAKING*** Republicans have the votes! The Court's majority will safeguard our right to keep and bear arms (Democracy's teeth), protecting innocent babies, and protecting freedom and liberty. Many reading this will be upset, because they haven't yet made the connection between the second amendment and how it protects democracy. Many will see this connection much clearer after what the Democrats are planning to do after losing on November 3rd. This is a great day for all freedom-loving, democracy-loving patriots! GOOD DAY
They have to. It doesn't matter who is the nominee because there is not enough time for Congress to do their duty of vetting out a lifetime supreme court judge. It will have to be done without a full vetting. It will be a rubber stamp by Republican in Congress, ignoring their constitutional duty to advice and consent, again.
Amy Coney Barrett was vetted in 2017 for the 7th Circuit court (also lifetime appointments). The only vetting necessary now would be to look at her rulings on the circuit court.
Sizzle Chest, When you make posts like this, two things happen: 1. You come across as emotional and mad, thereby reducing the impact of your argument. Everyone knows that when people are emotional and mad, they don't think clearly. It's not a good look. It's better to appear in control of your situation, with the ability to reason and debate in a civil manner. 2. You eliminate your ability to credibly take the moral high ground in political arguments... this is perhaps the Democrats' biggest self-awareness failing. They don't understand why people don't reject Trump's coarse style... when they themselves are acting like crazy-eyed wild men. Neutral independents look upon the scene and conclude that both sides are out of their minds. Amy Coney Ginsburg Barrett will be a fantastic Supreme Court Justice. A wise mother who will contribute great things to the fabric of our society! GOOD DAY
