Democrats to introduce bill to pack the Supreme Court - Page 5 - 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

#15167826
Unthinking Majority wrote: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.

The litmus test is how you answer the question, Will the Trump/Republican Party be annoyed if the Democrats increase the number of justices and get progressive jurists into a majority? If the answer is Yes, then give bastards a taste of their own medicine.
#15167828
Unthinking Majority wrote:They didn't start it, not even close. When was the last time a bipartisan justice was nominated?

Can you provide a citation to prove your contention that Republican presidents always nominated jurists who enjoyed the support of the Democratic senators while Democrat presidents began nominating for the Supreme Court only those who had support of Democrat senators?
#15167830
Unthinking Majority wrote: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.

In 1945 Democrat President Harry Truman nominated a conservative Republican, Senator Harold Burton of Ohio, to the Supreme Court.

Image
President Harry Truman (l) with his nominee to the Supreme Court, Sen. Harold Burton
#15167834
Rugoz wrote:All that falls apart if you allow an expansion of the court. If a Trump-like figure with support in the Senate would win the election, he could simply double the size of the court, appoint loyalists and hereby eliminate all constitutional oversight.

Exactly, exactly why the Democrats need to overthrow the constitutional guard rails. It was those guard rails that allowed Trump to get elected. There were lots and lots of people who voted for Trump in 2016 that were deeply uneasy about voting him, but persuaded themselves to vote for him precisely because they comforted themselves with the thought that his power was limited. I don't know why people find this so hard to understand but there are 2 iron rules for politics in a 2 party system.

1 Never, never, ever put the short term interests of your country before the medium term interests of your party.

2 Never, never, ever put the short term interests of your party before the long term interests of your political career.

When Jeremy Corbyn stood for leader of the British labour party, half the parliamentary Conservative Party went out and got temporary Labour membership so as they could vote for him. They didn't hesitate to put party before country, which is why they are in government and the Labour and the Lib Dems are not. The Lib Dems totally blew it in 2010. Third parties don't get many opportunities to break the system open in a 2 party system, you must be utterly ruthless when they arise. I must confess I thought Boris had blown it, that he had just been too blatant in his narcissistic pursuit of self interest. but no I was wrong. Same with Trump I didn't expect him to win in 2016, Trump's utterly ruthless application of the two principles carried the day. Under the 2 party system there's no room for nuance, no room for ethics, loyalty or honour. Under the two party system winning is all that matters.
#15167836
wat0n wrote:
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/



Just as??

Racists have been holding Blacks down since the 1800s, and that means we're not calling slavery holding them down, with all that 3/5 vote nonsense.

The ratio, between Dems and Republicans, is maybe 10 to 1, counting the number of states doing gerrymandering. And, as I have already pointed out a couple of times, Republicans are pushing over a couple hundred bills so they can cheat enough to always win.

Anyway, you keep repeating variations of the same excuses. You don't have a leg to stand on.
#15167852
late wrote:Just as??

Racists have been holding Blacks down since the 1800s, and that means we're not calling slavery holding them down, with all that 3/5 vote nonsense.

The ratio, between Dems and Republicans, is maybe 10 to 1, counting the number of states doing gerrymandering. And, as I have already pointed out a couple of times, Republicans are pushing over a couple hundred bills so they can cheat enough to always win.

Anyway, you keep repeating variations of the same excuses. You don't have a leg to stand on.


What same excuses exactly? Pointing out both parties play that game?

We're not talking about the Constitutional Convention, we're talking about Democrats gerrymandering during the last redistricting wave a decade ago, while at the same time presenting themselves as the anti-gerrymandering party.
#15167864
wat0n wrote:
We're not talking about the Constitutional Convention, we're talking about Democrats gerrymandering during the last redistricting wave a decade ago, while at the same time presenting themselves as the anti-gerrymandering party.





If HR1/S1 passed, it would end most election cheating. Which is why Republicans hate it. They already do ten times what Dems do, and plan on doing a lot more.
#15167960
Suchard wrote:In 1945 Democrat President Harry Truman nominated a conservative Republican, Senator Harold Burton of Ohio, to the Supreme Court.

Well that was 76 years ago. Obama wasn't nominating conservative judges. So maybe we need to fix the rules to ensure more bipartisan nomination of judges. Which is why I proposed to change the law so that 75% of the Senate and House needs to vote to approve the nominee choice.
#15167967
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well that was 76 years ago. Obama wasn't nominating conservative judges. So maybe we need to fix the rules to ensure more bipartisan nomination of judges. Which is why I proposed to change the law so that 75% of the Senate and House needs to vote to approve the nominee choice.

The Constitution did not anticipate a Republican party and its Democratic opposition which has turned the country into a two-party country. The result is that the judiciary is political, especially nowadays. It would be better were independent jurists to fill vacancies rather than politicians.
#15167978
Guys:

Do you know how Chávez won in Venezuela? He got the vote of the poor people; he was a progressive. Once Chávez was elected he improved the lifestyle of the very poor to stay in power and the rest is history. If the Republican Party continues to go downhill we will have a one party system that will want to be in power forever . It is important to have balance! The left has a legitimate role in every society as they speak for the poor. The conservatives also have a legitimate role and if we lose that balance we are in big trouble.
#15167980
Julian658 wrote:Guys:

Do you know how Chávez won in Venezuela? He got the vote of the poor people; he was a progressive. Once Chávez was elected he improved the lifestyle of the very poor to stay in power and the rest is history. If the Republican Party continues to go downhill we will have a one party system that will want to be in power forever . It is important to have balance! The left has a legitimate role in every society as they speak for the poor. The conservatives also have a legitimate role and if we lose that balance we are in big trouble.


Another thing he did was to pack a Supreme Court that was at least as, and I'd say even more, powerful than the SCOTUS under the 1999 Constitution.
#15167988
wat0n wrote:Another thing he did was to pack a Supreme Court that was at least as, and I'd say even more, powerful than the SCOTUS under the 1999 Constitution.

Yes, the first thing they do is pack the court and change the constitution. A perennial left wing party in charge means near authoritarian control.
#15168010
Rich wrote:When Jeremy Corbyn stood for leader of the British labour party, half the parliamentary Conservative Party went out and got temporary Labour membership so as they could vote for him. They didn't hesitate to put party before country, which is why they are in government and the Labour and the Lib Dems are not.


They got help from the Jewish Lobby both inside and outside the Labour Party as is factually depicted in Al Jazeera's documentary series The Lobby. Corbyn isn't anti-semetic, he's just pro-BDS pro-Palestine, but they successfully got him labelled it anyway.
#15169462
@Unthinking Majority it is a big lie that the SCOTUS is some neutral non political or non partisan place. It is all politics. And the Republicans packed that Supreme Court with far Right people.

Young ones too.

A lot of legal experts predict you won't see the damage til about 2040-45. Because Trump packed the appellate courts in many districts with Trump fanatics as well. Most decisions of import don't make it all the way to the SCOTUS. It is all in final decision in the lower courts. If you got hundreds or dozens of conservative Right wing judges? It will effect the law for many decades.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t ... or-decades
#15169482
Tainari88 wrote:@Unthinking Majority it is a big lie that the SCOTUS is some neutral non political or non partisan place. It is all politics. And the Republicans packed that Supreme Court with far Right people.

Young ones too.

A lot of legal experts predict you won't see the damage til about 2040-45. Because Trump packed the appellate courts in many districts with Trump fanatics as well. Most decisions of import don't make it all the way to the SCOTUS. It is all in final decision in the lower courts. If you got hundreds or dozens of conservative Right wing judges? It will effect the law for many decades.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t ... or-decades

The Democrats put in liberal judges with all their picks, including the lower courts, let's not kid ourselves. That's the game. It's not the GOP or Trump's fault that 3 SCOTUS openings fell in their lap to appoint for that they had the votes in Congress to do it.

If you have liberal judges that will affect law for decades too. Not getting your way isn't an excuse to start re-engineering the SCOTUS in your favor every time it's not in your favour. Even Biden and Pelosi aren't on board with it because it's a bad idea.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@Potemkin , the problem with this Johnston is […]

But if that is not enough I gave you even more( .[…]

2021 Israeli-Palestine Conflict

the glorious SAA Please stop this nonsense. I h[…]

When did redlining end? Let me know if you need […]