Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15122417
Stormsmith wrote:America is in the midst of several disasters

1. The pandemic. And Americans are racking up the great number of deaths per million in the world. We don't know yet what sort of effects after the ill get better will affect them, yet President Trump wants to kill the affordable health act

2. The south is under water. The west is ablaze. And President Trump is against climate change.

I hate to see what would happen in another Gores v Bush decision.

This is why RBG was so popular among all, including conservatives like Judge Scalia:
RBG hated BLM, she was simply too smart to fall for the commies of BLM.
#15122515
Unthinking Majority wrote:So whenever the Supreme Court could lean conservative, the reaction of some people, including yourself, is to expand the Court and nominate more left-leaning and even moderate judges?

I've never heard of anything less democratic.

Can you imagine if Obama nominated a new judge and the court now leaned left, and then Trump came in and expanded the SCOTUS by adding 6 more judges, and nominated more right-leaning judges and NO left-leaning ones.


Rugoz wrote:
Can't believe some Dems proposed to pack the court. Are they mad?

Trump is gonna pick up on this idea, I can already see it coming.

UM,
IMHO, it is not 'undemocratic' to fix a problem that 60% to 75 % of the people polled say they do NOT want to see created.

And, I said to add Justices who are 'moderates' as well as some left leaning.

I think the vast majority of Americans want a USSC that is fair and looks at each case on its own merits. I also, think that a majority agree that the Constitution should evolve, that it is a living document. I think I have seen cases resolved by votes of all the right-wing justices that did exactly that.

Rugoz,
That is fine by me. In fact go ahead and make my day.
If Trump somehow gets the House to pass a law to expand the USSC, then in Jan. we will just expand it more. And he will be the one who started it.
So, I truly hope that Trump does 'make my day' by saying he wants to do it 1st.
.
#15122528
Steve_American wrote:UM,
IMHO, it is not 'undemocratic' to fix a problem that 60% to 75 % of the people polled say they do NOT want to see created.

And, I said to add Justices who are 'moderates' as well as some left leaning.

I think the vast majority of Americans want a USSC that is fair and looks at each case on its own merits. I also, think that a majority agree that the Constitution should evolve, that it is a living document. I think I have seen cases resolved by votes of all the right-wing justices that did exactly that.

Rugoz,
That is fine by me. In fact go ahead and make my day.
If Trump somehow gets the House to pass a law to expand the USSC, then in Jan. we will just expand it more. And he will be the one who started it.
So, I truly hope that Trump does 'make my day' by saying he wants to do it 1st.
.


I'm the first to admit that the SCOTUS is a ridiculous institution making political decisions based on questionable interpretations of a 200-year old document.

That said, it's what the US has and rendering it illegitimate by letting the party in power pack it in their favor at will is very dangerous, especially under current circumstances.

Besides, the US is more a state democracy than a people's democracy. Of course some states might not be fine with that arrangement in the long term. I can see the US unravel or reorganize if a big state such as California decides to leave.
#15122591
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

Are you alluding to the fact that RBG was big enough to apologise to Mr. Kaepernick for her remarks about his protest?

The American liberals (not the crazy leftists) bend the knee to BLM because they need votes to defeat Trump. Privately they acknowledge BLM is a marxist organization with a fetish for black trans and the destruction of Western values. I guess they do not know Marx came from the West.

Kaepernick is an A-hole, a hypocrite, a man with a massive inferiority complex that has become a millionaire thanks to the Western culture he hates.
Last edited by Julian658 on 24 Sep 2020 16:09, edited 1 time in total.
#15122595
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

Please understand that I am just going to ignore unsupported diatribes like that.

You did not even answer my question.

RBG was a normal liberal and hence highly respected by the right. She was not a commie like you and your minions. RBG was tolerant and actually understood the issues way better than the nasty left.
#15122695
Steve_American wrote:UM,
IMHO, it is not 'undemocratic' to fix a problem that 60% to 75 % of the people polled say they do NOT want to see created.

I think this is probably nonsense.

Also, Americans elected a conservative Senate and a conservative President. Dear America, If you don't want a conservative-leaning supreme court, don't elect conservatives.

And, I said to add Justices who are 'moderates' as well as some left leaning.

I think the vast majority of Americans want a USSC that is fair and looks at each case on its own merits. I also, think that a majority agree that the Constitution should evolve, that it is a living document. I think I have seen cases resolved by votes of all the right-wing justices that did exactly that.


Why wasn't this a problem for you, and many other, before left-leaning RBG died? It's because you don't want a right-leaning supreme court, but you have little issue with a left-leaning supreme court. Ideally i'm sure you'd prefer an objective supreme court (moderate, shall we say), but it's only a problem now apparently. Hypocrisy.

Honestly i don't want a conservative supreme court either, but I also don't think the supreme court should change just because it starts to lean to the ideology some people don't like.
#15122699
@Steve_American, would you define as “moderate” a judge that believes laws and constitutions should be applied as intended by those that created them, except when modified by later legislatures and voters?
#15122740
Unthinking Majority wrote:Honestly i don't want a conservative supreme court either, but I also don't think the supreme court should change just because it starts to lean to the ideology some people don't like.


The change is so arbitrary though that it borders on illegitimate.

If the 2 judges lived a few years longer, the US might have had a liberal supreme court for decades, instead of a conservative one. It's ridiculous and archaic.

There should be terms of fixed length and the same number of judges to replace during each congress.
#15122753
Rugoz wrote:The change is so arbitrary though that it borders on illegitimate.

If the 2 judges lived a few years longer, the US might have had a liberal supreme court for decades, instead of a conservative one. It's ridiculous and archaic.

There should be terms of fixed length and the same number of judges to replace during each congress.

I agree, fixed terms might be a good idea. They should also pass some kind of rigorous assessment of their previous record as a judge to see that they judge the law objectively and not overly ideologically.

I wouldn't make the terms 8 years, way too dangerous because a POTUS who sits 2 terms could almost always stack the seats before he leaves.
#15122765
Doug64 wrote:@Steve_American, would you define as “moderate” a judge that believes laws and constitutions should be applied as intended by those that created them, except when modified by later legislatures and voters?

You added this part there, "... except when modified by later legislatures and voters".
This is wide open to interpretation. If you mean only through the specified process, then, no I do not believe that. If you mean that any law passed is an infallible guide to what the Constitution says, then again, no I think that goes too far the other way.
. . . What I believe is that moderate justices are far more likely to get it right than either justices of the right or the left.

----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Steve_American wrote:
UM,
IMHO, it is not 'undemocratic' to fix a problem that 60% to 75 % of the people polled say they do NOT want to see created.

Unthinking Majority wrote:I think this is probably nonsense.

Also, Americans elected a conservative Senate and a conservative President. Dear America, If you don't want a conservative-leaning supreme court, don't elect conservatives.

You do know that Trump did not get a majority or even a plurality of the votes.
Also, by design of the Founders, the Senate does not represent the majority of the voters at this time. At this time, the Repuds in the Senate represent way less than half the voters. This was by design. However, the founders did not intend for there to be political parties and surely they didn't intend there to be a few billionaires who can spend $20 million to destroy any Senator they choose to destroy.
. . . Citizens United has done what many said it would do. It lets the Chinese Peoples Army spend money to buy TV ads to damage the American election process. It lets billionaires threaten to remove any Repud Senator who displeases them.
. . . Also, the Founders could not have imagined the world we live in now. They could not have *even* imagined that the diesel engine would allow about 5% of the population to feed the other 95% (I think these are about the right percentages). Therefore, they could not have imagined metro-areas with a pop. of over 10 million. They assumed that the pop. would always be living mostly on the land farming it. Therefore, they did not have foreseen that giving every state 2 Senators would lead to our current situation.

So, I reject your claim that it is "probably nonsense" for me to claim that a solid majority of voters and the vast majority of the Americans do not want the Repuds to ram through this last USSC justice after some of them had started voting. If RBG has died on Nov. 4th (afrer the election), what do you think the American people would think if the Repuds rammed through their pick in a lame-duck session? IMHO, in that case they would have done so.

Steve_American wrote:
And, I said to add Justices who are 'moderates' as well as some left leaning.

I think the vast majority of Americans want a USSC that is fair and looks at each case on its own merits. I also, think that a majority agree that the Constitution should evolve, that it is a living document. I think I have seen cases resolved by votes of all the right-wing justices that did exactly that.

Unthinking Majority wrote:Why wasn't this a problem for you, and many other, before left-leaning RBG died? It's because you don't want a right-leaning supreme court, but you have little issue with a left-leaning supreme court. Ideally i'm sure you'd prefer an objective supreme court (moderate, shall we say), but it's only a problem now apparently. Hypocrisy.

Honestly i don't want a conservative supreme court either, but I also don't think the supreme court should change just because it starts to lean to the ideology some people don't like.


UM, I did suggest this in the past. I think I suggested something similar here even.

You just forgot about it or didn't see it.

Ideally, we would have the system we had when I was in HS and college. But, with all Federal elections funded by the Fed. Treasury. No, campaign contributions at all. And political parties which are like we had then, i.e., not crazy. And with the filibuster in place to make the nominees for justices and judges be somewhat moderate. [I don't know how to do it in the current political climate, but I would like to see some way to force both parties to be reasonable about confirming justices and judges. For example, using the filibuster to block every choice by a President for years should not be allowed either. Maybe this, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the USSC, so have a law that if a party uses the filibuster without any support from 1 member of the other party to block a Justice, then the USSC is suspended and can not hear any cases or issue any more decisions until that seat is filled.]

As to when the size of the USSC should be changed, IMHO the time is now.
One party is crazy. It will soon have put 3 new justices on the court when it should have just put 1 on. It effectively reduced Obama's 2nd term to 3 years and extended Trump's term to 5 years. At least for choosing USSC justices, which is the topic here. . . . That party also made the American people suffer in order to block any NEEDED thing that Obama proposed, thereby shortening his 2 terms to one year). The Repud party didn't care a wit about the deficit, which was one excuse they used. We all know that, because it had increased the deficit far more in both Bush's terms and in Trump's term with tax cuts for the wealthy that didn't trickle down and just made them insanely more wealthy. Therefore, I deduce that the Repud party doesn't care a wit about the welfare of the American people. Some might think that because the Constitution says the Gov. is to "promote the GENERAL welfare", that the US Gov. has a Constitutional duty to do exactly that. And, the Repuds didn't do that after the GFC/2008 or at any later time for that matter.

So, yes, IMHO, now is high time to start playing hardball politics. Very hardball politics.!
But then, I believe the UN IPCC report from a few years ago that we had 12 years to get to zero CO2 emissions, so we don't have time to wait years or decades to get this fixed.
OTHO, I believe in MMT, so I want the Gov. of the world to set up a Job Guarantee Program, Fed. funded and locally run, that in America would pay everyone who wants a job to be paid over $20/hr. to do such a job (of their choice, within reason).
.
#15122776
Unthinking Majority wrote:I agree, fixed terms might be a good idea. They should also pass some kind of rigorous assessment of their previous record as a judge to see that they judge the law objectively and not overly ideologically.

I wouldn't make the terms 8 years, way too dangerous because a POTUS who sits 2 terms could almost always stack the seats before he leaves.

I had and posted it here a rather radical solution to ideological justices a few years ago.
It was to have each President in the 1st summer of each term 'retire' 1 USSC justice of his choice and replace her/him in the normal way.
The intent is that each Pres. gets 1 appointment, at least. And especially, that this would remove the worst justice in the opinion of that President.
This should always increase to "moderate-ness" of the court.
It also turns the court over faster, but not too fast.
[In some few cases the President may retire a justice appointed by their own party, if this justice is (for example) nearing the 12 year limit and can be replaced with a justice who can server for 12 years.]
Twelve year term limits may also be good. Note, the "also".
See just above for some other of my ideas.
.
#15122777
Steve_American wrote:You added this part there, "... except when modified by later legislatures and voters".
This is wide open to interpretation. If you mean only through the specified process, then, no I do not believe that.

Got it, you believe that Article V of the Constitution is so much pointless verbiage, because whenever some particular requirement or restriction becomes inconvenient we can just get a judge--or ultimately five out of nine justices--to "interpret" the inconvenience out of existence.

You do know that Trump did not get a majority or even a plurality of the votes.

Trump won majorities in thirty out of fifty states, giving him 304 electoral votes. I'd call that a decisive majority.
Last edited by Doug64 on 25 Sep 2020 05:31, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 23

You're not the only Cuban, X guy. There are plen[…]

Death case definition - Belgium, Spain, Sweden, U[…]

Castro came from money and then married into elit[…]

https://media.thedonald.win/post/r4tc[…]