SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Elizabeth Warren is promoting the idea expanding the Supreme Court.  Biden is against the idea.  WHY???

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/elizabeth-warren-democrats-question-supreme-court-legitimacy

Where does the expansion end?

Whatever it takes to even out the right wing court.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Elizabeth Warren is promoting the idea expanding the Supreme Court.  Biden is against the idea.  WHY???

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/elizabeth-warren-democrats-question-supreme-court-legitimacy

Where does the expansion end?

Whatever it takes to even out the right wing court.

until the next presidency when it's whatever it takes to get out the left wing court.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?

lying under oath? right. have a nice day.

It couldn’t be any less complicated. 

He could simply say at the time that was his opinion.  Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators.  It's wishful thinking.  There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have. 

The house could hold impeachment hearings and impeach them to sully their reputations and their legacies but there’s not enough time. The house could subpoena any documents related to their views on abortion, call witnesses and pore through their statements, expressed views in public on the issue and previous legal opinions. The idea that they suddenly changed their opinion after what they said during their confirmation hearings and personal interviews because of the arguments put before the court and the legal opinion they signed onto is poppycock and disingenuous. If you believe what Mace is selling, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.

Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.

I’m not selling the idea they changed their mind. Just saying that is all their defense needs to be and it’s up to the house or whoever is impeaching the judges to prove otherwise. And someone’s mind is a very difficult thing to prove. 

If such documents existed where they planned to overturn Roe, I’m sure someone would have found them and exposed them a long time ago.
I don’t know how pointing that out is being disingenuous. Impeaching a judge on this is a near impossible task.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

And I wouldn’t want a system where that’s all it took to impeach a judge and fill them in with your own picks. Otherwise, the first time Brown mentions the difference between a man and a women she gets impeached and replaced?

lying under oath? right. have a nice day.

It couldn’t be any less complicated. 

He could simply say at the time that was his opinion.  Mace is correct, you can't prove it well enough to convince 66 senators.  It's wishful thinking.  There's nothing that can be done about the two justices other than some shallow hand wringing from Collins, Murkowski and Manchin, which is what we have. 

The house could hold impeachment hearings and impeach them to sully their reputations and their legacies but there’s not enough time. The house could subpoena any documents related to their views on abortion, call witnesses and pore through their statements, expressed views in public on the issue and previous legal opinions. The idea that they suddenly changed their opinion after what they said during their confirmation hearings and personal interviews because of the arguments put before the court and the legal opinion they signed onto is poppycock and disingenuous. If you believe what Mace is selling, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.

Still doesn’t mean they’d be convicted because all of those white male cons believe the same thing. And they still wouldn’t vote to convict if SCJs were on tape saying they’ll overturn Roe before they even hear arguments.

I’m not selling the idea they changed their mind. Just saying that is all their defense needs to be and it’s up to the house or whoever is impeaching the judges to prove otherwise. And someone’s mind is a very difficult thing to prove. 

If such documents existed where they planned to overturn Roe, I’m sure someone would have found them and exposed them a long time ago.
I don’t know how pointing that out is being disingenuous. Impeaching a judge on this is a near impossible task.

Impeachment happens in the House. With a current dem majority. Conviction and removal from the bench happens in the senate. There’s enough evidence to impeach. Not enough to convict.

Further, to argue that the justices don’t have biases or agendas and are swayed by oral arguments is what is disingenuous. If that were the case then so much effort in creating a list of potential nominees wouldn’t be what it is. You’d be able to put qualified names in a hat and draw one. Repubs have politicized the courts like never before, and that politicization and partisanship is bought and paid for.

cincybearcat

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Elizabeth Warren is promoting the idea expanding the Supreme Court.  Biden is against the idea.  WHY???

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/elizabeth-warren-democrats-question-supreme-court-legitimacy

Where does the expansion end?

Whatever it takes to even out the right wing court.

until the next presidency when it's whatever it takes to get out the left wing court.

Yeah I don’t get this thought process….

Merkin Baller

If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters. 

Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want. 

mrussel1

Merkin Baller said:

If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters. 

Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want. 

They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters. 

Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want. 

They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.

They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.

The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.

So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.

I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters. 

Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want. 

They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.

They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.

The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.

So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.

I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.

I don't understand.  Overriding a filibuster simply means you don't need 60 votes to advance a bill to the executive for signature.  It has nothing to do with overriding a veto.  You need 2/3 in the House and Senate to override a veto.  

cincybearcat

Yeah, I think the more I think about the filibuster the more I question it.  There are already so many things to ensure fair representation (or even unfair depending on how you look at it)....it seems to me the House and Senate should simply be majority rule.

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

If the Dems don’t win in November I don’t think anything really matters. 

Once they have control, the GOP is going to override the filibuster & do whatever they want. 

They would have to override Biden's veto too. Unlikely. They won't have 66 senators.

They could pass a senate rule that does not require 60 votes on all court matters as long as there are justices on the bench without 60 votes from their own confirmation. Very unlikely Biden vetoes a court expansion in this climate.

The point of continually adding justices is to demonstrate the court has become an absurdist institution, where the only thing that matters is political power, which is the exact opposite of how it was setup to work. Really, what else has changed in the last five years? Maybe if Alito realizes his 6-3 majority is very short term, he scales back his political activism from the bench.

So Brian’s picture makes perfect sense.

I’ll go out in a limb and state the constitution did not set up a predetermined number of justices for exactly the types of situations that are occurring in this era.

I don't understand.  Overriding a filibuster simply means you don't need 60 votes to advance a bill to the executive for signature.  It has nothing to do with overriding a veto.  You need 2/3 in the House and Senate to override a veto.  

I misunderstood. I guess the point was Biden would veto legislation passing senate and house to expand the court. If Dems win midterms and get solid 51 votes to expand court and carve out filibuster, and Biden vetoes the bill, he probably gets primaried and loses the nomination.

cincybearcat

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

that's the reasoning. and it's a band aid. I'll admit, I was advocating for it when I was emotional. But now I agree...it's not a viable solution. 

mickeyrat

cincybearcat said:

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

right. you would have to get a case to wind its way through the various lower courts to even get to a potential scotus case.

rather than expanding the court, I'd prefer setting term limits on them.  OR and age cap for the "lifetime" appointment.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2020/10/02/five_facts_on_lifetime_appointments_to_the_supreme_court_579458.html#!

HughFreakingDillon

my workplace has a mandatory retirement age. that's not considered ageist. so why not the court or congress?

gimmesometruth27

the court ruled today that a public school official has the right to lead students or student athletes in prayer on public school grounds.

seriously. what the fuck are we doing here?

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

that's the reasoning. and it's a band aid. I'll admit, I was advocating for it when I was emotional. But now I agree...it's not a viable solution. 

Not only is it not viable, but what ever loopholes Democrats can find to exploit in the short-term, you can bet good money that Republicans will exploit it better (and usually less reversibly) when it's their turn. For example - one party stacks the courts but cares about democracy, and the other stacks the courts but only cares about power - I see way more downside potential than upside potential.

gimmesometruth27

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

MayDay10

cincybearcat said:

What exactly is the reasoning behind expanding the court? Cause you don't like the current makeup of the court?  This seems like a really weird way to solve the issue. 

I think it may be an improvement because we might not see so much weight placed on a single appointment, and so much hand wringing about when/if a justice retires or dies.  In theory it could water it down.  But then you look at the Senate and its just 51-49 all the time along party lines maybe it wouldnt matter.  Supreme Court isn't quite so polarized all the time though as people like Roberts are sometimes able to see reason and a moral obligation to actually do the job.  

The amount of emphasis placed on a one-term president who lost the popular vote, to pick 40% of the Supreme Court for-life with a friendly congress is just silly.

IMO the whole selection process should be overhauled, as well as some sort of term-limit.

HughFreakingDillon

gimmesometruth27 said:

i guess it is ok to kneel on a football field to pray, but not in silent protest.

Even as ridiculous I think thanking a god for a touchdown is, I honestly don't see an issue with this ruling. Now, if he's mandating all his players participate, then there is an issue. but if it's voluntary, I don't see the problem.