U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[aceluby]

59 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

See above. Can you not see how this will obviously play out? Sure, you’ll get some short turn gratification, but this strategy won’t end well. This isn’t the same as the gun control slippery slope fallacy. It would be an utter disaster.  

What gun control?  I'm not sure what your argument here is, nor what you think is so obvious.  What I want is a lot more judges where a single judge isn't as powerful and a single replacement isn't a big deal.  I think it's beyond necessary for both of those to happen.  It also needs to happen at the circuit level.  A small handful of individuals have FAR too much power, and not only do I think diluting that power is a great idea, I think having more diverse opinions will have better results.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

These are Kal's middle points:  

The first is entirely unrealistic for what I said earlier - who's the original POTUS that gets to decide this, and what to do with sitting justices?  Are they "grandfathered" in, or not?  And if not, why not?  And if not, isn't that a violation of Article III Section I..this gets sticky really quick.

Well you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get around Section III. And they would be grandfathered in until the next appointment comes due, and then they would be ranked by length of tenure with tie breakers going to the younger justice, with the next elected president getting to make their nomination in the first or second year of their presidency.  

Quote

The second is fine.  Pork is fine.  There really doesn't need to be a law passed to "reintroduce" it because (1) it's still being done and (2) they can just ignore their own self-oversights anyway (as we know all too well).

True. You would just need to change the norms, not create a new law.   

Quote

The third is a fairy dream, based on Congress developing a spine again.  They gave that up during the Great Depression and have never taken it back.  Do I think they should?  Sure, written literally hundreds of pages on it.  But that ain't gonna change anything.

Is it any more of a fantasy than court packing? And frankly, assuming Trump’s full term turns out to be the disaster many of us expect him to be, perhaps said spine will be grown.

Quote

Nah, that's just submitting to stereotypes.  And probably this board.  I don't know that at all.

Recent history says Democrats blink first and Republicans push the boundaries.

[aceluby]

5 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Recent history says Democrats blink first and Republicans push the boundaries.

So Democrats should just keep laying down? 

Sound logic.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, aceluby said:

What gun control?  I'm not sure what your argument here is, nor what you think is so obvious.  What I want is a lot more judges where a single judge isn't as powerful and a single replacement isn't a big deal.  I think it's beyond necessary for both of those to happen.  It also needs to happen at the circuit level.  A small handful of individuals have FAR too much power, and not only do I think diluting that power is a great idea, I think having more diverse opinions will have better results.  

You’ll get your desired outcome of having more judges, but I think in the long run it’s obvious that a lot more of them will be conservative. If you trying packing the court, Republicans will go nuclear and always add more than Democrats. The courts are their main hope of fighting back against a changing country, and they’ll die on that hill before Democrats will.

11 minutes ago, aceluby said:

So Democrats should just keep laying down? 

Sound logic.

There’s a difference between standing up for yourself and going nuclear.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Well you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get around Section III.

It's Article III, Section I.  "Section III" just sounds like you haven't read the constitution at all.

33 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

And they would be grandfathered in until the next appointment comes due, and then they would be ranked by length of tenure with tie breakers going to the younger justice, with the next elected president getting to make their nomination in the first or second year of their presidency.  

Tie breakers to the younger justice?  Why?  Isn't the a clear partisan way to get [whomever has the advantage] on the court?  And why the next elected president?  Why not the current president?  If this is just then, why isn't it just now?   -- The previous are the nicest of objections that would follow such an action.

33 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Recent history says Democrats blink first and Republicans push the boundaries.

Heh.  Tha'st the Dems perspective.  Does the GOP demonstrably go further right than the Dems go left?  Yep.  But the GOP has blinked plenty of times.  As had Trump.  We're not facing an indomitable enemy.  Recent history says midterm turnout sucks and Trump got really lucky.  Wash off your handkerchief and get off out the matt.

[Frog Eater]

If Trump and the Republican congress packed the court today, put all 24 of Trump's possibilities on the Supreme Court, Democrats would go ballistic, and there would be people in the streets and coverage 24/7. The Republicans would be forced to back down. 

What makes you think it would be any different if the Democrats packed the Supreme Court?

It really is a fantasy you are building up for yourself. 

 

[DMC]

Just now, Frog Eater said:

If Trump and the Republican congress packed the court today, put all 24 of Trump's possibilities on the Supreme Court, Democrats would go ballistic, and there would be people in the streets and coverage 24/7. The Republicans would be forced to back down. 

What makes you think it would be any different if the Democrats packed the Supreme Court?

It really is a fantasy you are building up for yourself. 

 

Because we would do it with tact and brains.

[Frog Eater]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because we would do it with tact and brains.

Ah, the old "It's different when we do it" adage. 

I'm pretty sure that's how the Republican's feel as well

[DMC]

Just now, Frog Eater said:

Ah, the old "It's different when we do it" adage. 

I'm pretty sure that's how the Republican's feel as well

Erm, k.  Yes, different perspectives perceive things differently.  Great contribution!

And "it's different when we do it" is an adage because we're doing the right thing while you are smug in doing the wrong thing and thinking it's smart in doing so.  Pathetic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

What does the age of the story matter to the central point that President Harkonnen is a laughingstock who has degraded our international standing?

Nah, Baron Vlad was actually pretty subtle beneath his bravo... He was just beaten by the ultimate mentat who would see even deeper than he could.  Trump is no Baron Harkonnen.

[DanteGabriel]

6 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Nah, Baron Vlad was actually pretty subtle beneath his bravo... He was just beaten by the ultimate mentat who would see even deeper than he could.  Trump is no Baron Harkonnen.

Maybe Putin is the Baron and the whole Trump family serves as Beast Rabban.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Maybe Putin is the Baron and the whole Trump family serves as Beast Rabban.

That is a frighteningly good analogy.  

[aceluby]

14 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Ah, the old "It's different when we do it" adage. 

I'm pretty sure that's how the Republican's feel as well

Fuck how they 'feel', Republicans prove this every single day.  They are the most hypocritical bunch in the United States, bar none.  Leaving the SC seat open a year, but confirming Kavanaugh during an election year, by a sitting President under multiple investigations.... JFC, Republicans should take "it's different when we do it" and make it their platform motto.

[SweetPea]

23 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Leftists respond to people rallying for white supremacy and calling for ethnic cleansing while those white supremacists are chanting nazi rhetoric and sieg heiling and they turn it into a violent assault and kill someone, it's some how both sides with nazis and white supremacists having some very fine people. Yet Antifa are the problem, not the fucking neo nazis and white supremacists calling for violence against those that do not fit their idea of white ethno state.

Like in Portland, right? Where the peaceful, anti-violence Antifa members totally didn't stand in the rally's way, agitating, throwing bottles, rocks and fireworks into the crowd.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

That is a frighteningly good analogy.  

You still fear/deny that justices decide based on politics, not law.  There has never been, nor has there been, someone who prescribes to the legalism you encourage as possible.  It's always been politics, and it always will.

[aceluby]

Just now, SweetPea said:

Like in Portland, right? Where the peaceful, anti-violence Antifa members totally didn't stand in the rally's way, agitating, throwing bottles, rocks and fireworks into the crowd.

Nice whataboutism.... any other gems you want to try out?  Maybe a classic gaslight? Oooo how about a ridiculous conspiracy theory?  Those are my favorite from you guys.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Like in Portland, right? Where the peaceful, anti-violence Antifa members totally didn't stand in the rally's way, agitating, throwing bottles, rocks and fireworks into the crowd.

What was the rally for?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

You still fear/deny that justices decide based on politics, not law.  There has never been, nor has there been, someone who prescribes to the legalism you encourage as possible.  It's always been politics, and it always will.

You're, in my view, offering a view very similar to that of Robespierre in justifying the Terror.

Why attempt a neutral legal system if it is always politics?  Why no just go with pure democracy and let the mob determine what may an may not be done with people, their families, their property?  Why do we even attempt to create law if everything boils down to politics?
 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Scott de Montevideo! said:

You're, in my view, offering a view very similar to that of Robespierre in justifying the Terror.

Why attempt a neutral legal system if it is always politics?  Why no just go with pure democracy and let the mob determine what may an may not be done with people, their families, their property?  Why do we even attempt to create law if everything boils down to politics?
 

Because unless you have a true AI running the courts there's a person interpreting law at some point and that person is a political beast.  Why bother pretending they aren't?

[SweetPea]

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Nice whataboutism.... any other gems you want to try out?  Maybe a classic gaslight? Oooo how about a ridiculous conspiracy theory?  Those are my favorite from you guys.

No whataboutism in my post whatsoever. I was replying to this statement in the post that I was quoting:

-White supremacists turned the rally into a violent assault-

That is flat out wrong. The violence was started by Antifa.