Is the court as currently constituted stacked for or against public opinion on most issues (voting rights, health care, privacy (this includes abortion, btw), rights of workers w/respect to corproate entities) to the extent these issues are broadly known by the public? - is the court with a new Trump-appointed judge replacing RBG stacked for or against public opinion on those topics?
Right-wing pastor Robert Henderson at Radiant Church in Waco, Texas, boasted to his congregation that “he attended a meeting with other conservative evangelicals in Washington last Monday where he prayed for control over the Supreme Court,” Right Wing Watch reports. Said Henderson: “We were in the meeting on Monday night in D.C., and I told them, I said, ‘Look, we need to go into the courts of Heaven right now while we’re on-site in D.C., and we need to shut the mouth of the lion, judicially. We need to ask for a judgment against the lion that has actually been devouring and intends to devour from the Supreme Court. We need to get a judgment against this lion that Paul said God shut the mouth of.’ So, I led us into that place. Well, guess what? Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away. President Trump will establish a new Supreme Court justice. That’s no accident.” “You need to understand that if we don’t shut down this abortion issue, that blood altar will invite demonic powers into this nation,” Henderson exploded. “It’s not just about the babies, it’s about a blood altar that is inviting demonic powers. We have to shut it down, and we need a judgment, a judgment, a judgment against the mouth of the lion.”
What act by the Dems are you talking about? Who is waiting around? Who is saying to wait for behavior to change.
I agree it will largely be against those topics. Never denied that. I will state again there are ways around the court.
I think they should wait just because of 2016’s precedent. Realistically, what will a more conservative court achieve beyond scrapping women’s reproductive rights, corporate oversight, and the precarious rights of already marginalized voters?
I just don’t buy it that, if the scenario was reversed and Dems held the Senate and WH, then they would be clamoring to wait on a justice nom/vote/appt until after the election. How could I ever assume that to be the case when we’ve got the two sides so against each other in most cases and always seem to be looking for the leg up? But, hey, if this is really working against those two goons Graham and McConnell as far as their re-election chances go...then good riddance to those Trump schlong sucking flip floppers.
A minority of the country wants to rule the majority. That's not the America a majority of this country expect to have. Something needs to be done about it.
Good points. Dems had already been rumbling about packing the courts after losing the tiebreaker. RBG's seat doesn't change that thinking except if only to accelerate the process. It's a pretty radical idea that's slowly becoming legitimized as more 5-4 cases that overturn established precedents change the fabric of our society. The only response to the bolded, is that in saner pre-McConnell-destroy-Obama times, Scotus appointments took longer and since there wouldn't be enough time to fill the seat even with a (non-filibuster proof) majority, then the Dems would be more open to compromise. Mitch sitting on a shitload of federal vacancies and Reid using the nuclear option to get around some of them changed things, but the time gap is still there...for now.
Again another strawman. I never said it gets better on it's own. I've repeatedly pointed out how winning state houses can reverse the trend of gerrymandering. The USSC courts cited actually gives an out by empower state supreme courts to weigh in. As stated the MN SC has limited gerrrymandering for the last couple of redistricting. US population trends show that Non-hispanic whites are decreasing and according to the US Census by 2045 they won't be a majority. https://www.google.com/search?q=flo...0.69i59l8.120777j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The current Trumpist party is a Nativist party that plays fast and loose with racism. In every poll shows that Trump's strength is in white males. There's not going to be enough of them soon to maintain Nativism. We're already seeing this. VA, CO, and NM were once reliably red states and now are reliably blue. In the 80's and early 90's CA was a purple state. AZ is now a purple state and could go blue as soon as this election. TX probably not long after that. Most of these are due to primary demographic changes in those states. Fair enough and will agree that ruling did have an affect on the election. As stated again though this can still be countered by winning state houses. Not easy of course but the bottom line is all of the changes you're proposing won't happen without winning elections. Is your argument really that few political scientist and historians would agree that preserving separation of powers is important? Also at the risk of rehashing our previous debate the Founders were aware of the filibuster. It had been used in England and even back in Athens the idea of continuing to speak to prevent or slow down a vote was known. Anyway you're already said you're counting on the filibuster to keep the changes you're proposing in place as you said "low probablility events of filibuster proof majority". Seriously, you're better than this. Yes the court can be changed and has never denied that and another strawman. 151 years though is a pretty long time and would qualify as a traditional norm. Given how you brought up stuff like Dred Scott and Roger Taney I'm pretty sure you're not looking at them as precedent. Again the nature of the separation of powers is the basis of our government. The idea that the minority cannot be run over the majority is a very important part of our country. If you don't think so I'll take the word of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison over yours. It is being abused. I fully agree and why I am very opposed to Trump and the Republican Congress. I think they are an existential threat because they are undermining the Separation of powers and overpowering the minority in the Senate. That's why in the last few days I've donate hundreds of dollars to tight Senate races around the country. That doesn't mean that I support things I that I believe will undermine those by the Democrats. This isn't about partisanship.
And in my debate with SamFisher I agree they are doing a lot of that. You can't gerrymander Senate districts and this is great opportunity to take it and the presidency back. Once those things happen then this debate will really matter. The problem I see though with saying that things are so rigged now that just voting isn't enough is if that was really the case then anything being proposed, stacking court, doing away with filibuster, etc.. is just going to remain hypothetical.
this isn't precedent. Here's the precedent: the reason Garland was denied was because Republicans won the needed elections. The reason the republicans get to add someone now is because they won the needed elections. Its fair and Democratic. Go to Wisconsin. Win elections.
Can you not see the flaw in your own argument here? We're arguing that the playing field is tilted and needs untilting, you're arguing that, welp, after the catastrophic reign of Moscow Mitch, and a literal criminal sociopath gang - that there's a 60%-80% of their both losing, is good enough for you. It should be 99-100%. That is the way our system is and was supposed to work. Look it up in the federalist papers. That is not the way it works, because it has evolved too many unaccountable checks. The theoretical chance of salvaging a functional state out if this autocratic slouchfest is enough for you to rationalize your bbs take. It's not enough for me and it's not enough for @txtony, and I fear it's not enough for America.
Your technique here is very dishonest First, playing "founders said!" is like pulling bible quotes. You can find something for everything (there's tons of **** about tyrannical judges btw). Honestly it's a wash, but even if not those ****ers have been dead for 200 years, I trust Norman Ornstein more than a dead slaver on a poli sci question in 2020. Second, "it gets better on its own" obviously doesn't mean stasis. I'm saying your trend line is way, way, way too flat. Yes, it's important to win state elections. But the timeline between that and using its impact to blunt deadhand control by retrograde clowns like Samuel Alito and Kavanaugh is quite literally 40 years or so. We will be dead by then I don't know about you but I don't want my kids to grow up for their entire adult life ruled by cruel bastards and Trumpist sycophants like Neomi Rao. Third, your argument about "150 years is a new norm!" is just embarrassing. Do I need to explain why? Go back to 1619 if I do. You treat that our system has calcified as proof of its greatness. It's a bug, not a feature. That's why everything is crumbling and we're ruled by a malignant narcissist sociopath who is barely coherent.
they can't smear Barrett as a gang rapist I predict they will find someone to claim she made a racist remark/racial slur. This will be difficult to pull off as plausible given her black children, but they don't have much else.
