Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

But if the Republicans passed a law allowing them to seat additional Conservative Supreme Court Justices today, you would think it unfair. 

Note: there would be no law. There is no law stating how many SCOTUS there needs to be. 

And yes, of course it would be unfair, but things are already very, very unfair, and instead of waiting for the next unfair thing to happen it's best to one-up it. Of course the next POTUS could simply add even more to counterbalance things (assuming they have a majority in the senate), and it'll escalate, but even that's preferable to a generational conservative control of SCOTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

They already have several times before.  Why would this time be different? 

Different times, a different vote? IDK man, I’m just pointing out the few avenues available to block any awful pick.

 

I still wish that Rick Perry’s idea was actually implemented, though it would never get through the constitutional amendment process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Its completely different. The public outrage would be deafening if the Democrats tried to seat additional justices. Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

The rules of the game were that POTUS can nominate SCOTUS and the senate will hear their nomination. McConnell already changed the rules of the game twice now - once by refusing to even hear a nominee for almost a year, and again when he removed the filibuster for SCOTUS. 

46 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

If Kennedy wanted his seat filled by a liberal, he could have retired under Obama. Same for Ginsburg. 

 

So you support hereditary rule of SCOTUS justices then? Interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

What the senate did with Merrick Garland's appointment was extremely fringe and yet whatever outrage that existed was not enough to prevent Trump's election. 

More accurately, it was probably the single biggest issue for many voters - I know for a fact it was for evangelicals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

How do the Democrats pack the Courts?

You vote to add more Justices to the Supreme Court. The Consituation says nothing on how many Justices the Court is to have. 

I think it can be done by simple majority in the House and Senate. There are a whole sort of issues but it is within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Different times, a different vote? IDK man, I’m just pointing out the few avenues available to block any awful pick.

 

I still wish that Rick Perry’s idea was actually implemented, though it would never get through the constitutional amendment process.

Collins and Murkowski both already voted to confirm an anti-choice justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

They already have several times before.  Why would this time be different? 

Exactly. They voted for Gorsuch who didn't, uh, exactly state a whole lot of certainty about being for it, other than it was established. And hey, look, he's already voted to reduce its effectiveness several times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You vote to add more Justices to the Supreme Court. The Consituation says nothing on how many Justices the Court is to have. 

I think it can be done by simple majority in the House and Senate. There are a whole sort of issues but it is within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices.

The senate only. The House is not actually part of this in any way. And now you simply need a simple majority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

What are you on about mate?

1. McConnell pulled a new rule out of thin air and said there could be no vote on a replacement in an election year.

2. Then in a historic party-line vote, they changed the Senate rules and went "nuclear" to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.

It's absolutely nonsensical to make the above statement given those two facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hearing predictions that within 18 months at least 20 states will have an outright ban on abortion.

And that's just the beginning.

The US is going to look like Saudi Arabia for women in a few years, just without the burkas.

You guys are screwed for at least 30 years.

 

Btw, today when I was out driving there was a woman in a burka, full thing, dark purple robes, black face screen, black leather gloves, standing on the corner of a street. Now, I have seen several women in burkas before, but never like this woman. She looked like Death personified. Or someone out of the Game of Thrones, someone so medieval it seemed like a scene from a movie. The imagine she presented was strangely powerful and incredibly disturbing. I wish I could have taken a picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Jesus, now you're trying to talk yourself into Collins and Murkowski? The dumbos who were lied at to their faces on the tax bill then sat down like good girls and let the men govern? 

Listen, we were on the wrong side of history. Let it in, just let the despair thread its way through your chest for a while. Don't try to fight, that just leads to silly fantasies, just relax and let it in.

If you have to cry, nobody's watching. It's ok. I ain't gonna lie to you. It still hurts, when the hits come, but they just kind of slide off once you let it all go. You can even have a little bit of fun sometimes.

Mmn hmn... https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1012066407004168194

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Collins and Murkowski both already voted to confirm an anti-choice justice. 

Gorsuch’s appointment didn’t change the practical balance of the court. Replacing Kennedy with someone who is anti-choice would, hence maybe they vote differently. We’ll also get to see if Flake is a man of his word.

Look, I’m not delusional. I know it’s unlikely, but these are the best options you got, so flood the phone lines of these specific senators. There may be a few others worth looking at too.

 

Also, i.e. packing the courts, just no. It’s a terrible idea that will set an awful precedent, and for the love of god don’t let Trump get wind of the idea. I could easily see him changing the court’s make up to 15 and shoehorning in six more conservatives.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

You vote to add more Justices to the Supreme Court. The Consituation says nothing on how many Justices the Court is to have. 

I think it can be done by simple majority in the House and Senate. There are a whole sort of issues but it is within the power of Congress to determine the number of Justices.

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Jesus, you really are smoking crack.

Never touched the stuff, myself. I was never wealthy enough for a coke habit and heroin was a no-go. Opiods (pills, don't be trashy), man. That's the way to go. Just make everything nice and fluid, like you're under water. It's real quiet down there.

 

We all float down here in the sewers with trumpwise.

note, it has not been proven that trump is not a tentacley dungeon dimension creature from before da dawna time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Gorsuch’s appointment didn’t change the practical balance of the court. Replacing Kennedy with someone who is anti-choice would, hence maybe they vote differently. We’ll also get to see if Flake is a man of his word.

Look, I’m not delusional. I know it’s unlikely, but these are the best options you got, so flood the phone lines of these specific senators. There may be a few others worth looking at too.

 

Also, i.e. packing the courts, just no. It’s a terrible idea that will set an awful precedent, and for the love of god don’t let Trump get wind of the idea. I could easily see him changing the court’s make up to 15 and shoehorning in six more conservatives.   

The precedent is already set. The GOP stole a SCOTUS seat via conspiring with a hostile foreign government. They are using that court, literally as we speak, to destroy the Democratic party and to curtail rights and democracy within the US. Since the structure of the US Senate makes impeachment of a justice basically impossible and since Gorsuch will never voluntarily resign, packing the courts is the Democrat's only option for dealing with the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

Nothing at all will stop them, save keeping either POTUS or the senate or if congress chooses to actually act. 

But that's what the state of affairs is right now. There is no returning to norms. There is damage control and triage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

The same thing that stopped them from stealing the majority on the court in the first place: nothing.

But it's already happening so you either fight back or you roll over and accept complete defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

In other fucking hilarious news, Dems (including Silly Schumer) are already claiming that Trump should 'wait until after the election' to appoint a new justice.

They can't even get AtM'd with dignity.

Huh? This is the Democrats actually having a spine and playing smart. They literally have no power here so they are throwing McConnell's own words back in his face to oppose him in the media. It won't work because, again, they literally have no power to stop the appointment and McConnell doesn't give a shit about anything except power, but it's more or less the attack they've got.

The only other real track to take here is the whole "Trump is under investigation" thing. But that amounts to about the same, just different messaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...