|
If the situation ends up with Biden winning most of the swing states in a victory and the SC tries to take away 1 or 2, I don't see how you don't pack the court at that point. That's almost political suicide as a party.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Ok, this is the culmination of McConnell's life work. He can fall down a fuckton of stairs now, thanks.. I feel it's very important that Mitch get the best healthcare possible, so he can live to see his life's work dismantled and his party made utterly irrelevant on the national stage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If the situation ends up with Biden winning most of the swing states in a victory and the SC tries to take away 1 or 2, I don't see how you don't pack the court at that point. That's almost political suicide as a party. It's not suicide, it's daring the other guy to pull the trigger. And having 20+ years of evidence that they won't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
Bugsy posted:https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1320820738803326977 Which of these do you think are good and which do you think are bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if all of the conservative judges suddenly stop making insane rulings and retire instead like they did in FDR's time, i'll take that When FDR was President, there was no term limit. A handshake agreement won't suffice now, the new justices know they just have to stick it out for 4-8 years and they can outlast that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If the situation ends up with Biden winning most of the swing states in a victory and the SC tries to take away 1 or 2, I don't see how you don't pack the court at that point. That's almost political suicide as a party. You see, we have fifty years of evidence that the democrats won't do poo poo because their purpose is to be controlled opposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:When FDR was President, there was no term limit. A handshake agreement won't suffice now, the new justices know they just have to stick it out for 4-8 years and they can outlast that. "retire instead" was a key phrase in there 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:We're not going to see another Bush v Gore this election. It would take a lot longer to reach the SCOTUS than to count the votes. The reason it reached SCOTUS in the first place was because of a constitutional requirement that a winner be decided at a certain deadline. As far as I know that hasn't changed. Although the counting of votes has a lot more automation in place in many places now that it did not have before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The reason it reached SCOTUS in the first place was because of a constitutional requirement that a winner be decided at a certain deadline. As far as I know that hasn't changed. Yeah, we won't reach that deadline or even close to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
A whole bunch of bullshit had to happen for "how many times should we recount votes" go to the supreme court. Don't give it power it doesn't have, don't assume it's going to decide the election when the only way it could is if it came down to a few votes in one state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:There's an article in WaPo about using inseverability to make it hard for SCOTUS to rule against progressive causes: "If we make an unpalatable fallback option which is clearly constitutional, SCOTUS will never be able to strike it down!" *SCOTUS strikes the fallback down and says the ruling is not precedential* "Ah, well, nevertheless"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Knowing what 2020 has been like, even if Biden wins, the GOP is going to end up keeping the Senate just to ensure nothing ever gets better. On the other hand, if its a clean sweep - you better believe that court is going up to 13 judges before the midterms. After the ACA is struck down, there will be more blowback on the Democrats for not packing the courts. There is going to be no point trying to pass any legislation if even John Roberts can't occasionally throw you a bone and let things stand. The biggest hurdle is going to be winning control of the Senate and Presidency next week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:There's an article in WaPo about using inseverability to make it hard for SCOTUS to rule against progressive causes: Instead of playing games with that poo poo, just make legislation explicitly nonreviewable by the judiciary within the legislation itself. Oh, and pack the courts. Edit: TyrantWD posted:Knowing what 2020 has been like, even if Biden wins, the GOP is going to end up keeping the Senate just to ensure nothing ever gets better. They're never gonna do it. They should, but they won't. It's super convenient to be able to point at an insane SCOTUS, shrug, and talk about how there's no point in passing good legislation when it's just going to be overturned, but you can donate to make sure that when a seat opens up that a Democrat might be able to appoint the replacement. Kreeblah fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1320893759098413057?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
Guys please mother will be disappointed if I don't get the money to win this election!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:A whole bunch of bullshit had to happen for "how many times should we recount votes" go to the supreme court. Don't give it power it doesn't have, don't assume it's going to decide the election when the only way it could is if it came down to a few votes in one state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Knowing what 2020 has been like, even if Biden wins, the GOP is going to end up keeping the Senate just to ensure nothing ever gets better. If the ACA is struck down I can’t imagine how they don’t pack the courts with millions suddenly uninsured and pre-existing protections gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:There's an article in WaPo about using inseverability to make it hard for SCOTUS to rule against progressive causes: That's literally what the court is going to use to invalidate all of Obama care. They want to shoot the hostage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Knowing what 2020 has been like, even if Biden wins, the GOP is going to end up keeping the Senate just to ensure nothing ever gets better. I wish I shared your faith in the Democratic party actually being interested in ruthlessly wielding their power rather than pandering to people with a completely incoherent political ideology who they are afraid of scaring away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Quinton posted:I feel it's very important that Mitch get the best healthcare possible, so he can live to see his life's work dismantled and his party made utterly irrelevant on the national stage. I too look forward to the dismantling of 40 years of creeping right wing authoritarianism at the hands of noted political firebrand *checks notes* Joseph Robinette Biden?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If the situation ends up with Biden winning most of the swing states in a victory and the SC tries to take away 1 or 2, I don't see how you don't pack the court at that point. That's almost political suicide as a party. yeah, I think this is an important point that shouldn't be missed. The dems just lost control of the courts, and as a result legislation, for a generation. If they don't undo that, there's no reason for them to exist. They become the whigs in 1860.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Instead of playing games with that poo poo, just make legislation explicitly nonreviewable by the judiciary within the legislation itself. I'm incredibly stupid and have trouble keeping up with law, but are you referring to how the supreme court is only explicitly described as applying to state-vs-state, individual-vs-state or ambassador-related rulings? I was wondering if congress could just establish a shitload of Federal court circuits and state in a law that all lawsuits that are not explicitly described as being under the supreme court's jurisdiction are to be solved in the federal courts. I mean, watching the supreme court turn into a glorified decorative organization that only deals with rare cases would bring me the utmost joy, but I have no idea how practical that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
So when ax’s take the presidency and the senate and hold the house in 8 days through the democratic process and decide to resize the courts he’s good with that then? Cause “I got the power” should be something he understands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
Instead of outright invalidation of live wires that the left cares about, I honestly believe you're going to see this sort of 'choice' fueled balkanization where you have certain states doing one thing and certain states doing other thing. This will be a disaster and red states (and the people in them) will suffer worse than blue states for it. What I'm wondering about is what happens when cases brought in blue states, specially designed to gently caress with more progressive states in this country, end up being validated by the SCOTUS. New York seems really liberal, but you can find rear end in a top hat chuds upstate and in places like Suffolk county that would gladly serve as the face of some bullshit case that's designed to say, kill civil service forever...or any number of other regressive things to one-up State law on the matter. poo poo like that. I wonder what's going to happen when we hit those crisis points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Glumwheels posted:If the ACA is struck down I can’t imagine how they don’t pack the courts with millions suddenly uninsured and pre-existing protections gone. Support for court packing will probably hit close to 60%. Sure, Democrats don't want to commit to it now, because its a unpopular with our stupid loving populace who can't see the consequences of an action 10 seconds into the future, let alone months into the future. It just feels like the most 2020 thing to have all of this discussion about court packing, and then have it not even be an option after the election results next week. pocket pool posted:I wish I shared your faith in the Democratic party actually being interested in ruthlessly wielding their power rather than pandering to people with a completely incoherent political ideology who they are afraid of scaring away. The Democratic Party seems to have caught on to how the game is being played. If things go well, they will have the majority for about 2 years, after dealing with 4 years of Trump, and huge public support to do something. The 2022 and 2024 election is going to largely come down to what did you do when millions of people lost their healthcare. If the answer is nothing, Schumer could probably be successfully primaried by AOC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:you better believe that court is going up to 13 judges before the midterms. People keep coming up with this number. It seems they should add two seats, one for Garland’s stolen seat and one for this injustice. People will point out that an 11 seat court still puts the left in the minority, but we’re not shooting to kill here. We do still need to respect that the country has elected conservative shitheads quite a few times over the past 25 years, or else we’re looking at 100 justices by 2075 and a completely ungovernable nation because the GOP’s accelerationists enjoy driving off a cliff if they can take at least one innocent party along for the ride.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
There's 13 districts. The reason there were 9 supreme justices is cause there were 9 districts. Now there's 13, so... hell, why NOT add 4 seats? If we're doin' this let's do this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People keep coming up with this number. It seems they should add two seats, one for Garland’s stolen seat and one for this injustice. If you are going to pack the court you drat well are shooting to kill because the Republicans are going to do the same thing the moment they get a chance.=
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People keep coming up with this number. It seems they should add two seats, one for Garland’s stolen seat and one for this injustice. gently caress this, get poo poo done. Because in 4 years when nothing has gotten fixed, and Republicans win the presidency, you better believe they'll loving shoot to kill
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:After the ACA is struck down, there will be more blowback on the Democrats for not packing the courts. I don't think this is true. I think the general narrative will be that Republicans are bad for seating Barrett so close to the election, not that Democrats are bad for not packing the court
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Ok, I have a question. If it's not going to be Comey, Mueller, Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, Biden, etc., etc., then what's the plan? The reason people are looking for "adults" is because we "the individuals" have no power. We can't bully Trump and the Republicans into doing what we want. If all of us showed up at Capitol Hill tomorrow demanding change, they'd say "gently caress you" and sic the Feds on us. I just feel like comics like that are mocking how powerless the average American feels. "Heh! You thought somebody was coming to save you? Boy are YOU naive!" Well I can't save this country by my loving self. What's the goddamn plan???!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People keep coming up with this number. It seems they should add two seats, one for Garland’s stolen seat and one for this injustice. The only thing that scares me about 11 is that's a small enough number that the GOP would immediately pull the trigger the second they got control back and then add 2 more themselves, where 13 at least has the District Court reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The Democratic Party seems to have caught on to how the game is being played. If things go well, they will have the majority for about 2 years, after dealing with 4 years of Trump, and huge public support to do something. The 2022 and 2024 election is going to largely come down to what did you do when millions of people lost their healthcare. If the answer is nothing, Schumer could probably be successfully primaried by AOC. Genuinely curious what evidence you've seen of this? It was only last week that Biden's campaign was still indicating it was vetting literal Republicans for his cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People keep coming up with this number. It seems they should add two seats, one for Garland’s stolen seat and one for this injustice. 13 is popular because it matches the number of circuits, which is something SCOTUS is supposed to have a working relationship with. And yes we are shooting to kill here, we just have to disguise it to the point that no one objects to it solely on the grounds that it’s too radical, so a number with some practical backing is good. Also, court packing is only possible when you hold all 3 branches, so it’s not going to yo-yo back and forth. Especially if through court packing the dems can get election reform to stick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Ok, I have a question. If it's not going to be Comey, Mueller, Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, Biden, etc., etc., then what's the plan? The reason people are looking for "adults" is because we "the individuals" have no power. We can't bully Trump and the Republicans into doing what we want. If all of us showed up at Capitol Hill tomorrow demanding change, they'd say "gently caress you" and sic the Feds on us. I just feel like comics like that are mocking how powerless the average American feels. "Heh! You thought somebody was coming to save you? Boy are YOU naive!" Well I can't save this country by my loving self. The implication of the comic is that the grown-up was actually Sanders but this fool voted for Biden in the primary. Well, the artist almost certainly wouldn't frame it like that, but this was written as an indictment of liberals, not leftists. As seen by the names they listed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
Roberts not barring Barrett from attending this loving pony show is enough on its own to pack the fucker. It's completely delegitimized already. https://twitter.com/jackiekcalmes/status/1320899824988934144?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
I just found out that a very sweet lady I used to work with died from Covid after being hospitalized with it for the past week. gently caress today. gently caress it straight to hell.
BigBallChunkyTime fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Remember for the like 3 days after RBG died you had things like this? https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1307790903558406150?s=20 It's pretty clear that the Dems decided not to bother and just fundraise off of RBG's death/people afraid of Roe v. Wade being overturned
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:We do still need to respect that the country has elected conservative shitheads quite a few times over the past 25 years, In this context, which is "the President", then what you mean to say is "the country" has elected a conservative shithead exactly once in those 25 years, and that was someone who enjoyed the benefit of incumbency after losing the popular vote in his initial election. quote:or else we’re looking at 100 justices by 2075 and a completely ungovernable nation because the GOP’s accelerationists enjoy driving off a cliff if they can take at least one innocent party along for the ride. I'm genuinely curious what you think we are now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 02:47
|
|