Democrats to introduce bill to pack the Supreme Court - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15167749
Suchard wrote:The Republicans packed the Republican Supreme Court whan your avatar and Mitch McConnell controlled the outher branches of government. The Democrats should copy them now.

Name the last time the Democrats didn't nominate a liberal judge?

This is the game. But now some people want to change the norms and rules and up the ante.
#15167750
Saeko wrote:For once I agree with @Istanbuller.

I wrote those things under influence of being anti-American. Are you anti-American too? If the administration have more issues internally, they will have less time for external ones. That is a win for rest of the world.

Mitch McConnell has spent the last twelve years destroying the legislative branch so he could pack the courts. If this bill passes, it will undo his entire legacy. All of his long years of obstructionism, and absolutely nothing to show for it. After this, there will never again be another Mitch McConnell.

You are wrong about Mitch.

He defended the filibuster under Trump administration. He refused ending it when Trump asked him to do it multiple times.

Republicans could easily destroy everything Democrats defend when Republicans controlled both chamber of Congress under Trump. But Mitch refused doing that.

Unthinking Majority wrote:How is packing the court much different than the GOP gerrymandering districts?

These two are not the same. Republicans are right about redistricting. It is the prize of being incumbent. Redistricting is a common political practice in almost every country.

In a federal system like in the US, each state is represented equally regardless of its population density. Republicans control more places on the map so they have this advantage.
#15167754
Suchard wrote:This post is written by someone who most likely thinks poorly of Democrats regardless of what happens.

XogGyux wrote:No, that is written by someone who feels threatened. Why?


You people are funny. On the American political spectrum I'm on the left on almost everything.

It's just that I listened to quite a few podcasts in the past few months where political scientists discussed polarization and democratic backsliding in the US and abroad. Based on the experience in other countries, it's safe to say they wouldn't recommend such a move.

wat0n wrote:Why would he feel threatened if he's Swiss and lives in Switzerland?


Funnily enough Switzerland doesn't even have a constitutional court. Not something I would recommend to Americans though.
#15167758
wat0n wrote:@Rugoz who deals with Constitutional issues in that case?


Quite a few European countries don't have constitutional courts, e.g. UK, Netherlands, Scandinavian countries. The legislative deals with constitutional issues*.

*occasionally with the help of courts, but it's the legislative that decides/puts it into law.
#15167763
Suchard wrote:The Republicans packed the Republican Supreme Court whan your avatar and Mitch McConnell controlled the outher branches of government. The Democrats should copy them now.


That's not really "packing". Every administration, when given the power, has tried to replace an open seat with someone espousing their own values.

Adding 4 justices is the equivalent of trying to pour pine tar on Usein Bolt's jogging shoes and then challenging him to a race. You're not just changing the rules. You're changing the game.
#15167764
Rugoz wrote:Quite a few European countries don't have constitutional courts, e.g. UK, Netherlands, Scandinavian countries. The legislative deals with constitutional issues*.

*occasionally with the help of courts, but it's the legislative that decides/puts it into law.


Wait a second, of course the legislative can always change the Constitution. But in those countries, isn't there a court (maybe the highest court) in charge of interpreting the current Constitution? The US also doesn't have a separate Constitutional court so... Well, I don't know.
#15167765
Unthinking Majority wrote:
You can call them cooks, maybe they are, but your or my opinion isn't in any way relevant. They were nominated by a POTUS who was elected and McConnell and the rest of the Senate were too. Are you trying to disenfranchise these voters and game the system just because they don't vote the way you like? That's what it sounds like to me.

How is packing the court much different than the GOP gerrymandering districts?



Weird conversation, Republicans do disenfranchise people. Re-balancing the court doesn't enfranchise Democrats, or disenfanchise Republicans. But the Founding Fathers did want justice. A lot of courthouses have a statue outside of Lady Justice. She always holds a scale to symbolize that striving to reach balance.

Gerrymandering is cheating. It creates distorted election results that do not reflect the intent of the voters. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but you'd be amazed at how often more Democrats vote, and lose. So I have the same answer, 11 would restore balance.

It is genuinely bizarre how Republicans break every law, rule and custom. And then expect Democrats to stand around with their thumb up their ass...
#15167768
late wrote:Weird conversation, Republicans do disenfranchise people. Re-balancing the court doesn't enfranchise Democrats, or disenfanchise Republicans. But the Founding Fathers did want justice. A lot of courthouses have a statue outside of Lady Justice. She always holds a scale to symbolize that striving to reach balance.

Gerrymandering is cheating. It creates distorted election results that do not reflect the intent of the voters. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but you'd be amazed at how often more Democrats vote, and lose. So I have the same answer, 11 would restore balance.

It is genuinely bizarre how Republicans break every law, rule and custom. And then expect Democrats to stand around with their thumb up their ass...


Both parties play that gerrymandering game. It's as American as apple pie.
#15167774
Unthinking Majority wrote:Yes I agree. All this means is that if the Dems were to pack the courts, the GOP would do the same the next time they have the chance (if not worse knowing how they operate).

What this does is further politicize the SCOTUS. It will just mean any time all 3 parties control both houses and POTUS they will control the SCOTUS too, which is disgusting and undemocratic as the SCOTUS is the last institutional check on their lawmaking power. This is completely against the Founding Fathers design which wanted separation of powers and checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power and tyranny.

The entire system is built on this fear. This is why George Washington VOLUNTARILY deciding not to run for a 3rd term despite being very popular and people urging him to run. He didn't want to be another King George.

The Supreme Court has already been politicized by the Trump/McConnell Republican Party.
#15167775
late wrote:Weird conversation, Republicans do disenfranchise people. Re-balancing the court doesn't enfranchise Democrats, or disenfanchise Republicans. But the Founding Fathers did want justice. A lot of courthouses have a statue outside of Lady Justice. She always holds a scale to symbolize that striving to reach balance.

Gerrymandering is cheating. It creates distorted election results that do not reflect the intent of the voters. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but you'd be amazed at how often more Democrats vote, and lose. So I have the same answer, 11 would restore balance.

If it's 11 that's 2 more. 2 more liberal or 1 liberal and 1 conservative?
#15167779
Goranhammer wrote:That's not really "packing". Every administration, when given the power, has tried to replace an open seat with someone espousing their own values.

Adding 4 justices is the equivalent of trying to pour pine tar on Usein Bolt's jogging shoes and then challenging him to a race. You're not just changing the rules. You're changing the game.

The trickery played by Mitch McConnell by not allowing a vote on President Obama's nomination because it was an election year and then allowing Trump to get a conservative Republican-friendly justice at the last minute in an election year. Did he fool you, I wonder.
#15167781
Rugoz wrote:You people are funny. On the American political spectrum I'm on the left on almost everything.

It's just that I listened to quite a few podcasts in the past few months where political scientists discussed polarization and democratic backsliding in the US and abroad. Based on the experience in other countries, it's safe to say they wouldn't recommend such a move.



Funnily enough Switzerland doesn't even have a constitutional court. Not something I would recommend to Americans though.


The cat is out of the bag. Mitch took away filibuster for supreme court nominees, he blocked Obama's pick and then rushed Trump's pick. Now some people are worried that democrats would pay in kind? Two words for those people "fuck off".
#15167783
wat0n wrote:Wait a second, of course the legislative can always change the Constitution. But in those countries, isn't there a court (maybe the highest court) in charge of interpreting the current Constitution? The US also doesn't have a separate Constitutional court so... Well, I don't know.


The law is the only thing that matters to courts. The constitution is simply a convention legislators and the people are supposed to follow. The exact interpretation and implementation into law is up to them.
#15167784
wat0n wrote:
Both parties play that gerrymandering game. It's as American as apple pie.



Republicans have gone crazy cheating. Hundreds of bills trying to kill democracy are working their way through legislatures.

Which is why Biden's bill would kill all gerrymandering.

Btw, it's already against the law, but that law is too weak. Not pie...
#15167797
late wrote:Republicans have gone crazy cheating. Hundreds of bills trying to kill democracy are working their way through legislatures.

Which is why Biden's bill would kill all gerrymandering.

Btw, it's already against the law, but that law is too weak. Not pie...


I'm not sure about what you mean here. For instance, Democrats managed to gerrymander Maryland to death in 2010 just as Republicans go on and gerrymander Southern states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... rrymander/
#15167813
Unthinking Majority wrote:They didn't start it, not even close. When was the last time a bipartisan justice was nominated?

You are ignoring how Mitch McConnell refused to allow the other 99 Senators to vote on President Obama's nominee because it was an election year yet he allowed a vote days before an election for a Trump justice last year. That was a sign if ever any American needed one that the TrumpRepublican party is corrupt from the head down.
#15167815
Suchard wrote:You are ignoring how Mitch McConnell refused to allow the other 99 Senators to vote on President Obama's nominee because it was an election year yet he allowed a vote days before an election for a Trump justice last year. That was a sign if ever any American needed one that the TrumpRepublican party is corrupt from the head down.

Yes he's a hypocrite. All the Dems have to do is respond in kind from now on. Problem literally solved. I don't think it's an excuse to change the laws and pack the court in your favour. That's far, far worse and will solve nothing longterm.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

If this trend continues the poor will have ac[…]

May 10, Sunday In a small house near Guiney’s […]

Well, if all *the smart people* are doing it, and […]

Big Vehicles: War Wagons

There's a weird dominance thing with some drivers[…]