Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Honestly seeing this BS is the perfect time to get support for changing the existing system.

I think your idea about giving a nonpartisan commission the power to appoint would require an amendment to the Constitution.  Can't see that happening anytime in the near or distant future.  Also, as a practical matter, formation of the nonpartisan commission is going to be a partisan process in the current climate, and the members in the commission are likely going to behave in a partisan manner.  Not sure it would be any better than the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next Democrat has to play hardball.  Create 4 new court positions (there's precedence for this) and use your 51 seat majority to get them easily confirmed.  The next GOP president will probably do the same, but who cares?  Keep doing it so that a single judge has less weight and the nominations aren't as severely impactful as they currently are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

If we are going to treat the SCOTUS as a political branch it should be elected.  This is what comes from political tests for a seat on the Court.  I’d almost prefer a seniority system or Justices nominated by a bi-partisan (or even better non-partusan commission.)

Lol. I suggested this to you last year and you said it would never work. What's changed?

:P

36 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Pardon, are you saying Judges shouldn’t make an effort at objectivity?  At avoiding political bias.  Hell refusing to address cases that are openly political under the “Political Questions” doctrine?

Some are better than others, though none are purely objective (and I don’t think it’s possible for one to be purely objective). What we do know is that justices are consistently voting with the party that put them in power on the key issues. I keep hearing about a recent study that documented this and found that Gorsuch has set a new standard, but I can’t find it at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

From where will you be gathering this support?

I didn't use the rain and fruit punch example on a whim.

With the right application by a determined majority it would be quite possible to lace the air with sugared punch (probably have giant smokestacks pumping high into the atmosphere) that bonded to the water in clouds.

But who the fuck would support that?

Likewise, who the fuck would support 'neutral' judges at this point? The game is broken. You can't just add rules in the middle of play, the winners aren't going to agree and the losers are, well, fucking losers.

People who believe in an independent judiciary.  People who want to see politics removed from law.  Hell, I have a few friends who have made it onto the bench I’ve suggested to them if they are ever nominated for a higher bench they should decline to comment on “judicial philosophy” or speculate on how they would rule in a case when they do not have all the facts and legal analysis.  They should simply direct the legislators to their record and let that stand.  Every person nominated should do that.  The BS of people being nominated for particular political beliefs shouldn’t be happening to begin with.  

Judges shouldn’t be leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for political purposes.  It is a violation of Judicial canons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scott de Montevideo! said:

People who believe in an independent judiciary.  People who want to see politics removed from law.  Hell, I have a few friends who have made it onto the bench I told them if they are ever nominated for a higher bench they should decline to comment on “judicial philosophy” or speculate on how they would rule in a case when they do not have all the facts and legal analysis.  They should simply direct the legislators to their record and let that stand.  Every person nominated should do that.  The BS of people being nominated for particular political beliefs shouldn’t be happening to begin with.  

Judges shouldn’t be leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for political purposes.  It is a violation of Judicial canons.

Dude, I'm not gonna disagree with your dream. But it won't happen. It literally cannot happen. It's more likely that my face will be carved into the moon, so as to constantly reassure my subjects, than there will be an independent judiciary in the U.S.

And since Americans are too lazy to start another civil war, well. It just ain't gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

The fact that just because things are the way they are does not mean they have to stay that way or should stay that way.  

Hence why I recommend the change if the current system.

I believe Bush said that Souter was the greatest mistake of his presidency.  Everyone was shocked that Blackmun stopped being an arch conservative, and judges like those two (and Stevens) are why Republicans created a vast architecture of vetting (like the Federalist society) for the express purpose of explicitly politicizing the judiciary, by making sure only partisan extremists were the only possible nominees for a republican president and senate.

Those justices you hold up as successes of the system, Republicans view them as massive failures of the system and they have worked for decades to change the system so that justices like those you mentioned can never happen again. We are living in their system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I believe Bush said that Souter was the greatest mistake of his presidency.  Everyone was shocked that Blackmun stopped being an arch conservative, and judges like those two (and Stevens) are why Republicans created a vast architecture of vetting (like the Federalist society) for the express purpose of explicitly politicizing the judiciary, by making sure only partisan extremists were the only possible nominees for a republican president and senate.

Those justices you hold up as successes of the system, Republicans view them as massive failures of the system and they have worked for decades to change the system so that justices like those you mentioned can never happen again. We are living in their system.

So, let’s change the system.  We don’t need a civil war to foster change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

So, let’s change the system.  We don’t need a civil war to foster change.

Yes you do. The power is held by those who would be injuring themselves were they to make change. The world is just the way the wealthy want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Judges shouldn’t be leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for political purposes.  It is a violation of Judicial canons.

A "Trail of Breadcrumbs?" how do you think this happens? People like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are courted (and groomed) from at least law school (and maybe earlier) for these judicial slots.

Breadcrumbs is an interesting euphemism for an elaborate and elite system of courtship. Weekends in fancy resorts at "conferences", constant cocktail parties and facetime with the innercaste elites of the party, Golf and lunches and dinners and so on and so forth. 

People like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are lavished with an organized program of elaborate attention (gratis of course) for years and years. There is no need for "BREADCRUMBS" their explicit and precise views on every issue are already sussed out, well documented and known. and since they are smart enough to take a hint, they have groomed their opinions to comport with the ideals of their benefactors because anyone in such a situation will want to keep the gravy train coming.

 

Breadcrumbs! Hah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

So, let’s change the system.  We don’t need a civil war to foster change.

Okay, let's hear it. How do you foster change? Show your work. 

Keep in mind that right now, congress does almost nothing save pass budgets. Congress was unable to agree even on a plan for something an entire party wanted, and then barely passed a dangerous tax cut. How do you propose to change this?

How do you change the fact that an entire side of the government has effectively abdicated any semblance of checks on the executive branch, and likely with this nomination another side also has?

How do you change the electoral college system?

How do you change lifetime judicial appointments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yes you do. The power is held by those who would be injuring themselves were they to make change. The world is just the way the wealthy want it.

Whenever people argue in favor of civil war this comes to mind:

http://raggedyfan.com/the-doctors-war-speech/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, let's hear it. How do you foster change? Show your work. 

Keep in mind that right now, congress does almost nothing save pass budgets. Congress was unable to agree even on a plan for something an entire party wanted, and then barely passed a dangerous tax cut. How do you propose to change this?

How do you change the fact that an entire side of the government has effectively abdicated any semblance of checks on the executive branch, and likely with this nomination another side also has?

How do you change the electoral college system?

How do you change lifetime judicial appointments?

Win 38 state legislatures and governorships and call a convention and pass seventy or eighty amendments to fix these things (and others).

That’s the easiest route, much easier than trying to amend via congress.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Win 38 state legislatures and governorships and call a convention and pass seventy or eighty amendments to fix these things (and others).

That’s the easiest route, much easier than trying to amend via congress.

 

 

Yep. That's the easiest. 

Now, seriously, which is going to happen first-  38 states with progressive leaderships, or 38 states with regressive ones? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, given that they are what, 5 states away? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I think your idea about giving a nonpartisan commission the power to appoint would require an amendment to the Constitution.  Can't see that happening anytime in the near or distant future.  Also, as a practical matter, formation of the nonpartisan commission is going to be a partisan process in the current climate, and the members in the commission are likely going to behave in a partisan manner.  Not sure it would be any better than the current system.

If you wanted to make it binding, then yes, the only way to achieve that would be to amend the Constitution. You could go for a handshake agreement, but that would never last, especially if another Trump came along.

37 minutes ago, aceluby said:

The next Democrat has to play hardball.  Create 4 new court positions (there's precedence for this) and use your 51 seat majority to get them easily confirmed.  The next GOP president will probably do the same, but who cares?  Keep doing it so that a single judge has less weight and the nominations aren't as severely impactful as they currently are.

Where would it end though man? This is what I was getting at last week. Say a Democrat adds four. What if the next Republican adds four more? ten more? This has only one logical ending: a judicial kangaroo court of sorts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

If you wanted to make it binding, then yes, the only way to achieve that would be to amend the Constitution. You could go for a handshake agreement, but that would never last, especially if another Trump came along.

Where would it end though man? This is what I was getting at last week. Say a Democrat adds four. What if the next Republican adds four more? ten more? This has only one logical ending: a judicial kangaroo court of sorts. 

It’s an amendment I would love to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chiKanery et al. said:

If you wanted to make it binding, then yes, the only way to achieve that would be to amend the Constitution. You could go for a handshake agreement, but that would never last, especially if another Trump came along.

Where would it end though man? This is what I was getting at last week. Say a Democrat adds four. What if the next Republican adds four more? ten more? This has only one logical ending: a judicial kangaroo court of sorts. 

If I thought for a second that Republican leadership would actually want to act in good faith at all, ever, what I would do is basically make a peace treaty with Republicans and agree to the following:

  • Democrats would immediately get two more SCOTUS seats, one of which would be Merrick Garland.
  • Everyone would pass a law to set the number of justices and their retirement based on their appointment time + 18 years or their leaving of their own choice or natural causes. Every POTUS term will have a nomination every 2 years thereafter, and if that seat is left vacant, that's fine. 
  • Everyone would pass a law to reintroduce pork barrel politics and earmarks. 
  • Much of the executive power would be clawed back to congress - specifically tariffs, trade, AUMF, etc.
  • The electoral college would be abolished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yep. That's the easiest. 

Now, seriously, which is going to happen first-  38 states with progressive leaderships, or 38 states with regressive ones? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, given that they are what, 5 states away? 

Assuming this is up to date, they need 5 more governorships and 6 more unified legislative bodies, 4 of which they already control one chamber. That's actually really scary.

http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/Elections/Legis_Control_071018_26973.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yep. That's the easiest. 

Now, seriously, which is going to happen first-  38 states with progressive leaderships, or 38 states with regressive ones? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, given that they are what, 5 states away? 

Wiki says they are 6 away, 4 are split currently, Looking through the list of Democrat held legislatures, I dont see a whole lot flipping

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It’s an amendment I would love to see.

Never going to happen. The small states have an insane amount of control and they'd never go for it. I'll restate this statistic: the smallest 22 states have roughly the same population combined as California. They get 44 votes in the Senate. CA gets 2. And while some of those 22 states are purple. not many are solidly blue. Republicans would never shoot themselves in the foot. They are, after all, the party of power, not fairness. Why would they ever do what Dems might consider doing? 

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...