Jump to content

US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

If Democrats don't get serious about using power to its maximum extent if and when they're back in control of the Senate and Presidency, we are doomed. Abolish the filibuster, pack the court, admit DC and Puerto Rico (if they want it) as states. Voters do not understand and will not punish these types of procedural power grabs, which is why Republicans always get away with them. 

The Dems want the filibuster when they have it though.  It’s like the line item veto.  Didn’t want it when Bush Sr was there, wanted it for Clinton.

And there is an argument that they have packed the courts over the years.  Unless you are arguing to expand the SC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Triskele said:

on that note: I find it baffling that Trump can't/won't push the GOP Senate on more stimulus pre-election.

Mostly pointless without the House.  They floated some proposals IIRC that were going no where in the House so Trump tried some phone and pen stuff.  I didn't qualify any relief myself, but since my buddy Fern hasn't bought me a beer in the last month or so, I'm guessing that didn't go anywhere either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Cold comfort for the longterm judicial ramifications (barring major action in January), but I wouldn't worry just yet about this somehow throwing the election to Trump at least.

Could not disagree more, unless you only mean winning fairly.

Yesterday I would have said the chances of Trump winning we're like 20 percent, 20 percent at Trump losing but somehow stealing the election, 60 Biden wins.  Now?  It's like 20/50/30.  

I feel like Biden needs to win the election on election night or he doesn't win at all.  PA, MI, WI and AZ won't be called on election night, so Biden needs to win 2 of 4 of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Texas.  Ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Liffguard said:

On the whole "liberal" Vs "progressive" thing. Seems like there would be a lot less confusion if you guys would just adopt the same terminology as the rest of the world and recognise the distinction between liberalism and socialism.

I think this is it. while Bernie and Biden may be advocating to very similar places,, I suspect a lot of self identified progressives would be for the abolishment of capitalism altogether while most self identified liberals wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Your way or no way. Purity politics rears it's head again.

This is simply moronic. Are you even trying? Just because I have broken down, at length, why your way will fail doesn't mean mine is the only other option.

And you have still yet to counter and explain why it won't fail. You never even try. Just like your boy Bernie. AOC even admitted it won't work, but still, you just have to believe....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats have to make it clear to Mitch McConnell that they will pack the Supreme Court if he replaces Ginsburg with a Trump nominee.  That's the only thing that might give him pause.  Packing the Court would undo everything he's done to stack the Supreme Court with conservative Justices, and it would ruin his legacy.  There needs to be outrage and agreement among the Democrat voters and politicians, that is reflected in the polls, to scare McConnell off. 

I think there's just too little time for them to nominate, vet, and confirm a justice in 45 days, so if McConnell wants to do it this term it will likely happen after the election.  Trump will have to nominate someone next week or so for this to work.  It's going to be a huge election issue for both parties.  Would threats to pack the Court rally Republicans to show up to vote?  Probably, but I have no idea how this issue will balance out right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to say “the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court”, but that’s absolutely useless to say unless the Democrats win both the Congress and the Senate. And Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the Senate.

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been removed? What would have to be the circumstances to do that?

And how could a retirement age be set? Is the term-for-life thing in the Constitution? In Canada, btw, SC judges have to retire at 75. There have been some remarkable opinions given by US judges when they were older than 75, so perhaps you’d lose some of that, but retired justices in Canada have gone on to lead important investigations and commissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Nice to say “the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court”, but that’s absolutely useless to say unless the Democrats win both the Congress and the Senate. And Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the Senate.

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been removed? What would have to be the circumstances to do that?

And how could a retirement age be set? Is the term-for-life thing in the Constitution? In Canada, btw, SC judges have to retire at 75. There have been some remarkable opinions given by US judges when they were older than 75, so perhaps you’d lose some of that, but retired justices in Canada have gone on to lead important investigations and commissions.

No, Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804 but not removed. You would need a constitutional amendment for age requirements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Democrats have to make it clear to Mitch McConnell that they will pack the Supreme Court if he replaces Ginsburg with a Trump nominee.  That's the only thing that might give him pause.  Packing the Court would undo everything he's done to stack the Supreme Court with conservative Justices, and it would ruin his legacy.  There needs to be outrage and agreement among the Democrat voters and politicians, that is reflected in the polls, to scare McConnell off. 

Packing the SC is thinking too small. Threaten to pack every federal court with liberal justices who will destroy all their attempts at voter suppression. And thus destroy their last thread to power. 

Quote

I think there's just too little time for them to nominate, vet, and confirm a justice in 45 days, so if McConnell wants to do it this term it will likely happen after the election.  Trump will have to nominate someone next week or so for this to work.  It's going to be a huge election issue for both parties.  Would threats to pack the Court rally Republicans to show up to vote?  Probably, but I have no idea how this issue will balance out right now.

45 days doesn't matter in this game. Idk if they'll try to fill the seat before or after the election, but if the deadline was next Friday, Mitch would find a way. We're dealing with the strange political leader who doesn't care about his reputation and overall legacy, so long as he gets what he wants. It's cynical politics at its worst. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all knew this was likely to happen, the fact that it happened 6 weeks before the election doesn't change that much I think.  Anyone who was voting on the court already had skin in the game.  

The court situation is entirely election dependant and this hasn't changed that.

I don't see it even making a difference in a Biden v Trump election case, even if Roberts flipped you'd have a 4-4 situation reaffirming a lower court ruling, sure there are scenarios where it could but this isn't the sky is falling moment everyone is making it out to be.  Pack the court, race to nuke the filibuster once you have united government, this was already the path forward.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WaPo reporter Robert Barnes has just pointed out something that hadn’t occurred to me.

Chief Justice Roberts has been a powerful figure on the Supreme Court, sitting at the pivot position with 4 justices more conservative than him and 4 more liberal than him. He could shape the court’s direction by moving from one side to the other.

If there are 5 conservative judges, Roberts loses control of the Court. He could vote with the more liberal side when he agrees with them and always be overruled. A SCOTUS that is out of control can’t be a good thing, can it?

And I’m watching Smerconish on CNN and he did a poll about whether or not hearings should be held or if the Senate should just ram through an appointment. Not surprisingly, the vote was 97 to 3. But, Marquette University Law School, as it happens, was conducting a national poll this past week asking what the Senate should do in the event Trump nominated a Justice, should the Senate hold hearings? The results were 67% for hold hearings v 32% for don’t hold hearings.

That 32% sounds like the hardcore base only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

WaPo reporter Robert Barnes has just pointed out something that hadn’t occurred to me.

Chief Justice Roberts has been a powerful figure on the Supreme Court, sitting at the pivot position with 4 justices more conservative than him and 4 more liberal than him. He could shape the court’s direction by moving from one side to the other.

If there are 5 conservative judges, Roberts loses control of the Court. He could vote with the more liberal side when he agrees with them and always be overruled. A SCOTUS that is out of control can’t be a good thing, can it?

And I’m watching Smerconish on CNN and he did a poll about whether or not hearings should be held or if the Senate should just ram through an appointment. Not surprisingly, the vote was 97 to 3. But, Marquette University Law School, as it happens, was conducting a national poll this asking what the Senate should do in the event Trump nominated a Justice, should the Senate hold hearings? The results were 67% for hold hearings v 32% for don’t hold hearings.

That 32% sounds like the hardcore bass only.

Not sure what people's opinions on this matter, electorally.  Maybe you get a few people who are really "respect the process" types who were going to vote for Trump stay home, but wouldn't they have walked years ago?  How many real undecideds are left waiting like cats in the adage for whom a SC justice procedural issues is what's going to keep them home or flip them?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Not sure what people's opinions on this matter, electorally.  Maybe you get a few people who are really "respect the process" types who were going to vote for Trump stay home, but wouldn't they have walked years ago?  How many real undecideds are left waiting like cats in the adage for whom a SC justice procedural issues is what's going to keep them home or flip them?  

My major point is along the lines of being careful of what you wish for. As I said, five conservative justices would undermine the power of the Chief Justice. This is a court that could go off into strange and bizarre directions.

As for the base supporting Trump’s move, if 67% of people want to see hearings being held, I would think that the intelligent thing would be to announce a candidate short list before the election but not go to a vote. After the election, win or loss, Trump could then just say fuck you and ram through his candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Could not disagree more, unless you only mean winning fairly.

Yesterday I would have said the chances of Trump winning we're like 20 percent, 20 percent at Trump losing but somehow stealing the election, 60 Biden wins.  Now?  It's like 20/50/30.  

I feel like Biden needs to win the election on election night or he doesn't win at all.  PA, MI, WI and AZ won't be called on election night, so Biden needs to win 2 of 4 of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Texas.  Ugh.

I think that's a misread of the situation, and the threat being posed. The Supreme Court isn't going to order on November 4 that votes stop being tallied. And all the vote totals been recorded on election night haven't been certified anyway. The Supreme Court might mess around on the margins, order a recount to be stopped or a few weeks after the election order that votes stop being counted; but that was already the case and isn't a threat to Biden winning (unless things are razor close).

The threat is, and always, that Trump actively stop votes from being counted; and that would come from his more militant supporters. Not the Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

My major point is along the lines of being careful of what you wish for. As I said, five conservative justices would undermine the power of the Chief Justice. This is a court that could go off into strange and bizarre directions.

As for the base supporting Trump’s move, if 67% of people want to see hearings being held, I would think that the intelligent thing would be to announce a candidate short list before the election but not go to a vote. After the election, win or loss, Trump could then just say fuck you and ram through his candidate.

Why though?  What purpose would that serve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think that's a misread of the situation, and the threat being posed. The Supreme Court isn't going to order on November 4 that votes stop being tallied. And all the vote totals been recorded on election night haven't been certified anyway. The Supreme Court might mess around on the margins, order a recount to be stopped or a few weeks after the election order that votes stop being counted; but that was already the case and isn't a threat to Biden winning (unless things are razor close).

The threat is, and always, that Trump actively stop votes from being counted; and that would come from his more militant supporters. Not the Court.

My worry is that this could alter the trajectory of the race, one which has been very favorable to Biden so far. Now, I don't think that will happen, but I was even more of an optimist before this occurred. This event definitely has me spooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

My worry is that this could alter the trajectory of the race, one which has been very favorable to Biden so far. Now, I don't think that will happen, but I was even more of an optimist before this occurred. This event definitely has me spooked.

Doubtful. It's far less consequential than the uncertainty of voting itself.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Why though?  What purpose would that serve?

As a carrot of course. Trump is in tight races. If he wins the election, which by God he wants to win, his nomination sails through. If he loses the election, he’ll still try to ram through the nomination. If all of a sudden more senators grow a pair and refuse, he’s not to blame, and in any event he’s not president so once again, fuck you, it’s not my fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Abolish the filibuster, pack the court, admit DC and Puerto Rico (if they want it) as states. Voters do not understand and will not punish these types of procedural power grabs, which is why Republicans always get away with them.

Other than completely abolishing the legislative filibuster, I agree.  Then again, I agreed 24 hours ago anyway.  I suppose now I agree..more intensely.

3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Mostly pointless without the House.  They floated some proposals IIRC that were going no where in the House so Trump tried some phone and pen stuff. 

Uh, the Dem House was at about $3 trillion and the GOP Senate was at about $1 trillion.  Then Pelosi went down a trillion to try to forge a compromise.  What did the GOP do in response?  Went down to $500 billion.  This is entirely the GOP Senate's fault - it's not even really Trump's who's actually pushing for the GOP to accept more funding - not the Dem House.

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Yesterday I would have said the chances of Trump winning we're like 20 percent, 20 percent at Trump losing but somehow stealing the election, 60 Biden wins.  Now?  It's like 20/50/30.  

I think I'm somewhere in the middle between you and Fez.  The shift from Roberts to Gorsuch as the swing vote on any Trump challenges trying to bullshit his way to stay in office is very significant and worrisome, but I don't think it's a shift of 20 percent likelihood to 50 percent likelihood the court enables him to steal the election.  Instead of a 30 point bump I'd put it more at 15-20.

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been removed? What would have to be the circumstances to do that?

Like Freshwater Spartan said they'd have to be impeached and convicted in the exact same process as the president.  Samuel Chase is the only SC justice to be impeached, but the Senate failed to convict.  In 1969 Abe Fortas resigned in a similar fashion to Nixon - if he didn't he likely would have been impeached and convicted.

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Is the term-for-life thing in the Constitution?

I would be remiss if I didn't emphasize that supreme court justices DO NOT have life tenure.  Article III Section 1:

Quote

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

What does that mean?  That's they have life tenure unless they're impeached/convicted.  But one of my old advisors was a courts scholar and former lawyer, and he'd always get so pissed off when people said SC justices had life tenure.  He was a very tightly wound guy who had a Napoleon complex, but he also really cared about his students - even the undergrads.

Anyway, this is why all the SC reforms messing with the justices' tenure are stupid.  Congress could try that, sure, but it would undoubtedly be ruled on by the courts.  And how would you rule on a law that is setting limits to your job tenure?

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Threaten to pack every federal court with liberal justices who will destroy all their attempts at voter suppression.

Yep, Congress has complete discretion on changing the complexion of the entire federal judiciary.  Packing the SC is political?  So what?  It was each of the 5 previous times Congress changed the composition of the SC as well.  Circuit Courts dominated by paleoconservative justices?  Create more circuit courts.  Don't like that a certain circuit court has jurisdiction over voting rights cases?  Strip them of that jurisdiction by creating a Voting Rights Review court that has jurisdictional supremacy on all such cases.  They can do a whole shitload of things, and the dams now done broke anyway.

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...