sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.

---

Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.

If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.

---

Cool Ice said:

---

Democrats have a better option than packing the Supreme Court
https://theweek.com/articles/938865/democrats-have-better-option-than-court-packing

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.

---

Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.

If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.

---

I would hope Joe would be more reasoned than just doing whatever the mob demands at any given time. I would hope he would instead consider what is best for our nation instead of taking a poll of what the liberal base wants to set his policies. Both parties have refrained from changing the number of seats for over 150 years. If Biden does something just because it's expedient, he would regret it. Every time any party has full control, the number of seats will get expanded more and more until a decision by the Supreme Court has no more weight than a vote by the house of representatives.

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.

---

Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.

If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.

---

I would hope Joe would be more reasoned than just doing whatever the mob demands at any given time. I would hope he would instead consider what is best for our nation instead of taking a poll of what the liberal base wants to set his policies. Both parties have refrained from changing the number of seats for over 150 years. If Biden does something just because it's expedient, he would regret it. Every time any party has full control, the number of seats will get expanded more and more until a decision by the Supreme Court has no more weight than a vote by the house of representatives.

---

The number of seats hasn't been changed in a long time, BUT it almost happened under FDR. He backed off his plan after SCOTUS stopped striking down his entire agenda. There is a world in which it could have happened then, though.

I don't think the circumstances now are all that different.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wife - let's get real.
In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.

---

Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.


My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).

The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.

I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.

---

Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant

Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.

Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.

If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.

I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.

In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.

This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.

edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.

---

Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.

If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.

---

I would hope Joe would be more reasoned than just doing whatever the mob demands at any given time. I would hope he would instead consider what is best for our nation instead of taking a poll of what the liberal base wants to set his policies. Both parties have refrained from changing the number of seats for over 150 years. If Biden does something just because it's expedient, he would regret it. Every time any party has full control, the number of seats will get expanded more and more until a decision by the Supreme Court has no more weight than a vote by the house of representatives.

---

The number of seats hasn't been changed in a long time, BUT it almost happened under FDR. He backed off his plan after SCOTUS stopped striking down his entire agenda. There is a world in which it could have happened then, though.

I don't think the circumstances now are all that different.

---

It clearly can change. And it has changed. But the number has not changed over 150 years, and most leaders have refrained from diluting the importance of the Supreme Court. There is a reason why it has not changed for over a century, even during the Warren court and when liberal titans of the court like Brennan (loved reading his opinions in law school) and Marshall were flexing the might of the Supreme Court to reshape the nation to chagrin of conservatives who, at times, had control of both other bodies.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.

---

Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.

If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.

---

I would hope Joe would be more reasoned than just doing whatever the mob demands at any given time. I would hope he would instead consider what is best for our nation instead of taking a poll of what the liberal base wants to set his policies. Both parties have refrained from changing the number of seats for over 150 years. If Biden does something just because it's expedient, he would regret it. Every time any party has full control, the number of seats will get expanded more and more until a decision by the Supreme Court has no more weight than a vote by the house of representatives.

---

The number of seats hasn't been changed in a long time, BUT it almost happened under FDR. He backed off his plan after SCOTUS stopped striking down his entire agenda. There is a world in which it could have happened then, though.

I don't think the circumstances now are all that different.

---

It clearly can change. And it has changed. But the number has not changed over 150 years, and most leaders have refrained from diluting the importance of the Supreme Court. There is a reason why it has not changed for over a century, even during the Warren court and when liberal titans of the court like Brennan (loved reading his opinions in law school) and Marshall were flexing the might of the Supreme Court to reshape the nation to chagrin of conservatives who, at times, had control of both other bodies.

---

I think you meant Brennan and Douglas. They both were prolific and Brennan, in particular, was brilliant writing ((I'm also partial to Brennan since he spoke at my law school graduation). Marshall didn't write that many opinions per session. Marshall's nomination was an historic moment in jurisprudence. Marshall was a highly regarded appellate attorney and solicitor general (he is probably is better known for the cases he won then his opinions).

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

I think, though, that you misread Biden if you think he won't take political advantage of the process. I voted for Bernie, but Bernie would not be able to get the moderate senators and congresspeople to increase his power because they would fear what he would do with it.

---

Biden moves with the party. That's what a close read of his career will show. When the average Democratic voter wanted to be tougher on crime (yes, this was true at one time), he supported that. Now he supports police reform. He's a politician, not some kind of "moderate" ideologue with an unshifting philosophy.

If the average voter supports packing the court or adding states, then he will shift that way.

---

I would hope Joe would be more reasoned than just doing whatever the mob demands at any given time. I would hope he would instead consider what is best for our nation instead of taking a poll of what the liberal base wants to set his policies. Both parties have refrained from changing the number of seats for over 150 years. If Biden does something just because it's expedient, he would regret it. Every time any party has full control, the number of seats will get expanded more and more until a decision by the Supreme Court has no more weight than a vote by the house of representatives.

---

The number of seats hasn't been changed in a long time, BUT it almost happened under FDR. He backed off his plan after SCOTUS stopped striking down his entire agenda. There is a world in which it could have happened then, though.

I don't think the circumstances now are all that different.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Oak: You voted for Bernie--A socialist/communist with no integrity and who is actively disliked by just about everyone in Congress. Hillary..."Nobody likes him." Integrity??He owns three homes with one of them being an ocean-front property..How about if we re-distribute one of your homes, Bernie???His wife was accused of making one million dollars disappear. Memo to Bernie supporters---we don't do socialism/communism in the US. Please see the Founding fathers as well as the sordid history of socialism/communism on this planet since Adam & Eve. This country fought a Civil war to free the slaves---we will fight another civil war to free the country from the tyranny of socialism/communism. You can only push the people so far before they fight back--socialism/communism is totally incompatible with freedom. Without freedom, nothing else matters.

---

Your freedom is the freedom to be like you. Now you will threaten us with violence to preserve your right to make everyone live like it is 1965.

You will die, hopefully a nice peaceful, nonviolent death, knowing that the people of this country don't want to be like you anymore. Screaming communist won't change that.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wife - let's get real.
In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.

---

Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.


My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).

The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.

I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.

---

Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant

Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.

Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.

If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.

I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.

In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.

This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.

edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

SCOTUS ended the Census a few days ago. So yes, pack the court have a rehear.

---

Court said they could end the census, not that they had to. That has no bearing on how the court would rule if the government decided to do another census in 2021

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Oak: You voted for Bernie--A socialist/communist with no integrity and who is actively disliked by just about everyone in Congress. Hillary..."Nobody likes him." Integrity??He owns three homes with one of them being an ocean-front property..How about if we re-distribute one of your homes, Bernie???His wife was accused of making one million dollars disappear. Memo to Bernie supporters---we don't do socialism/communism in the US. Please see the Founding fathers as well as the sordid history of socialism/communism on this planet since Adam & Eve. This country fought a Civil war to free the slaves---we will fight another civil war to free the country from the tyranny of socialism/communism. You can only push the people so far before they fight back--socialism/communism is totally incompatible with freedom. Without freedom, nothing else matters.

---

Your freedom is the freedom to be like you. Now you will threaten us with violence to preserve your right to make everyone live like it is 1965.

You will die, hopefully a nice peaceful, nonviolent death, knowing that the people of this country don't want to be like you anymore. Screaming communist won't change that.

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wife - let's get real.
In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.

---

Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.


My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).

The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.

I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.

---

Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant

Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.

Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.

If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.

I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.

In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.

This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.

edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

SCOTUS ended the Census a few days ago. So yes, pack the court have a rehear.

---

Court said they could end the census, not that they had to. That has no bearing on how the court would rule if the government decided to do another census in 2021

---

While that is technically correct, I don't think that is how the SCOTUS order is being interpreted or practically viewed. The emergency request that the Justice Department made last week resulted in a 7 to 1 SCOTUS order, that clears the way for Trump to alter the count while in office by excluding unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to reallocate congressional seats and Electoral College votes for the next 10 years. If the deadline had been extended, Trump would have run out of time (assuming Biden wins).

What Trump will do was clearly stated in the arguments before the court, the SG never denied what Trump will do, and the losing side clearly believes this means SCOTUS will deny any objection to the 2020 census. Moreover, I'm not sure I buy that the Constitution does not prohibit the 2021 census, as being performed beyond the Constitution's 10 year mandate (and I don't think the court's likely composition of 3 strict constructionists, is going to be comfortable reading 10 years to mean 11 years, because the Dems think the census after 10 years sucks). That would not be the entire last word, as the 2021 Congress could pass legislation on how the state's redistrict meeds to include everyone (that doesn't change the electoral college, and would be subject to challenge), and that is what the law articles are suggesting will happen outside of the Dems packing SCOTUS to have a more receptive audience. Lot at stake riding on this election.

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.

While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.

---

I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.

Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?

There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

Oak: You voted for Bernie--A socialist/communist with no integrity and who is actively disliked by just about everyone in Congress. Hillary..."Nobody likes him." Integrity??He owns three homes with one of them being an ocean-front property..How about if we re-distribute one of your homes, Bernie???His wife was accused of making one million dollars disappear. Memo to Bernie supporters---we don't do socialism/communism in the US. Please see the Founding fathers as well as the sordid history of socialism/communism on this planet since Adam & Eve. This country fought a Civil war to free the slaves---we will fight another civil war to free the country from the tyranny of socialism/communism. You can only push the people so far before they fight back--socialism/communism is totally incompatible with freedom. Without freedom, nothing else matters.

---

Your freedom is the freedom to be like you. Now you will threaten us with violence to preserve your right to make everyone live like it is 1965.

You will die, hopefully a nice peaceful, nonviolent death, knowing that the people of this country don't want to be like you anymore. Screaming communist won't change that.

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

I did not say I hope he dies. It is a fact that he will die someday. I would be happy for him to live 30 more years. I merely said that when he dies, he will die knowing that people in this country do not want to be like him anymore. I am simply referencing that his politics are not only hateful (he is advocating violent overthrow of a democratically elected government if he doesn't get his way both here and in another post) but it is so far past its expiration date as to not be recognizable to anyone under 40. I don't even mean conservative. There are people more conservative than he is that approach that conservatism with issues that have been relevant at some point in the last 40 years. The stuff he yells about are massively irrelevant. If he were talking basketball, SFCity would criticize him for living in the past.

And yes, given how hateful he has been, I like the idea that he will see everything he stands for rejected. (I mean, 95% of it has been already) I'm not proud of it, but I never claimed to be an angel.

I mean, c'mon Odonto. You have a few years on you. We don't see eye to eye on everything politically. You do however sound like someone who has been lucid in the last 10 years or so. And I haven't seen you advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

Thank you, though. I did try to make clear with the "nice peaceful nonviolent death" part that I wish him no ill will. If that wasn't clear, I appreciate the opportunity to clear that up. I do not want him to die. I just want him to experience the total repudiation of everything he stands for and to know that it is never ever coming back.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wife - let's get real.
In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.

---

Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.


My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).

The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.

I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.

---

Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant

Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.

Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.

If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.

I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.

In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.

This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.

edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

SCOTUS ended the Census a few days ago. So yes, pack the court have a rehear.

---

Court said they could end the census, not that they had to. That has no bearing on how the court would rule if the government decided to do another census in 2021

---

While that is technically correct, I don't think that is how the SCOTUS order is being interpreted or practically viewed. The emergency request that the Justice Department made last week resulted in a 7 to 1 SCOTUS order, that clears the way for Trump to alter the count while in office by excluding unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to reallocate congressional seats and Electoral College votes for the next 10 years. If the deadline had been extended, Trump would have run out of time (assuming Biden wins).

What Trump will do was clearly stated in the arguments before the court, the SG never denied what Trump will do, and the losing side clearly believes this means SCOTUS will deny any objection to the 2020 census. Moreover, I'm not sure I buy that the Constitution does not prohibit the 2021 census, as being performed beyond the Constitution's 10 year mandate (and I don't think the court's likely composition of 3 strict constructionists, is going to be comfortable reading 10 years to mean 11 years, because the Dems think the census after 10 years sucks). That would not be the entire last word, as the 2021 Congress could pass legislation on how the state's redistrict meeds to include everyone (that doesn't change the electoral college, and would be subject to challenge), and that is what the law articles are suggesting will happen outside of the Dems packing SCOTUS to have a more receptive audience. Lot at stake riding on this election.

---

It could go a few different ways. Perhaps someone challenges the census in court and the Biden administration chooses not to fight it. If the Trump administration engages in manifest error in the census I'm confident that Biden can do something about it, it's just a question of how extreme that something has to be in order to be effective.

I'm not an expert on the census but I know there has been litigation around the results and in at least one instance congress didn't reapportion. Everything is on the table, asymmetric warfare being quite the motivation for everyone to ignore norms.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wife - let's get real.
In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.

---

Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.


My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).

The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.

I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.

---

Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant

Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.

Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.

If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.

I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.

In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.

This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.

edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

SCOTUS ended the Census a few days ago. So yes, pack the court have a rehear.

---

Court said they could end the census, not that they had to. That has no bearing on how the court would rule if the government decided to do another census in 2021

---

While that is technically correct, I don't think that is how the SCOTUS order is being interpreted or practically viewed. The emergency request that the Justice Department made last week resulted in a 7 to 1 SCOTUS order, that clears the way for Trump to alter the count while in office by excluding unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to reallocate congressional seats and Electoral College votes for the next 10 years. If the deadline had been extended, Trump would have run out of time (assuming Biden wins).

What Trump will do was clearly stated in the arguments before the court, the SG never denied what Trump will do, and the losing side clearly believes this means SCOTUS will deny any objection to the 2020 census. Moreover, I'm not sure I buy that the Constitution does not prohibit the 2021 census, as being performed beyond the Constitution's 10 year mandate (and I don't think the court's likely composition of 3 strict constructionists, is going to be comfortable reading 10 years to mean 11 years, because the Dems think the census after 10 years sucks). That would not be the entire last word, as the 2021 Congress could pass legislation on how the state's redistrict meeds to include everyone (that doesn't change the electoral college, and would be subject to challenge), and that is what the law articles are suggesting will happen outside of the Dems packing SCOTUS to have a more receptive audience. Lot at stake riding on this election.

---

It could go a few different ways. Perhaps someone challenges the census in court and the Biden administration chooses not to fight it. If the Trump administration engages in manifest error in the census I'm confident that Biden can do something about it, it's just a question of how extreme that something has to be in order to be effective.

I'm not an expert on the census but I know there has been litigation around the results and in at least one instance congress didn't reapportion. Everything is on the table, asymmetric warfare being quite the motivation for everyone to ignore norms.

---

The courts will allow amicus briefs from interested parties.

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c2/4d/a2/c24da24954ed09c4cb3959a4d726f35c.jpg

Oh! Allow me to answer that.
YES! I want DJT to die!!!


(of natural causes)

---

Envy Adams said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

Oh! Allow me to answer that.
YES! I want DJT to die!!!


(of natural causes)

---

I want him to live long enough to be arrested and in handcuffs. Then he has my permission to die.

As for the red state idiots who support Trump no matter what he does, I'm glad they're the same people that don't like to wear masks. The world will be better off without them. They are irredeemable.

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Envy Adams said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c2/4d/a2/c24da24954ed09c4cb3959a4d726f35c.jpg

Oh! Allow me to answer that.
YES! I want DJT to die!!!


(of natural causes)

---

I want him to live long enough to be arrested and in handcuffs. Then he has my permission to die.

As for the red state idiots who support Trump no matter what he does, I'm glad they're the same people that don't like to wear masks. The world will be better off without them. They are irredeemable.

---

Attention BI: Another Yogi Scott Pilgrim fetish account has been spawned.

---

Envy Adams said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Envy Adams said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

Oh! Allow me to answer that.
YES! I want DJT to die!!!


(of natural causes)

---

I want him to live long enough to be arrested and in handcuffs. Then he has my permission to die.

As for the red state idiots who support Trump no matter what he does, I'm glad they're the same people that don't like to wear masks. The world will be better off without them. They are irredeemable.

---

Attention BI: Another Yogi Scott Pilgrim fetish account has been spawned.

---

Wow, amazing detective work Encyclopedia Brown

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Envy Adams said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Envy Adams said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Wow, a bit harsh Oaktown. Am I given to believe that your politics is so important to you that you would like to see anyone in disagreement over a certain age to die?

---

Oh! Allow me to answer that.
YES! I want DJT to die!!!


(of natural causes)

---

I want him to live long enough to be arrested and in handcuffs. Then he has my permission to die.

As for the red state idiots who support Trump no matter what he does, I'm glad they're the same people that don't like to wear masks. The world will be better off without them. They are irredeemable.

---

Attention BI: Another Yogi Scott Pilgrim fetish account has been spawned.

---

Wow, amazing detective work Encyclopedia Brown

---

Thanks, just providing a service to help the more rational BI posters keep up with the dizzying whirlwind of your ongoing identity crisis.

---

concordtom said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

As this process wraps up, whatever your preference, has anyone here besides me been in awe of Senator after Senator prepared with charts, copious notes which they read word by word, and staffers who run around and are feeding them with zingers for their 20-30 minutes of fame, looking somewhat limp.

While across from them sits a pretty damn intelligent lady with no notes, no charts, on the grill continuously for 8-10 hours, and citing case detail after case detail. Strange. Pretty impressive. Oh but she misused "a word "and was corrected with Websters. I would say if nothing else quite a contrast.

---

I'm very close with someone who went to Notre Dame for law school and even had Barrett as a professor there. Her recollection of Barrett was that of a supremely intelligent woman who is indeed a very friendly person. Independent of political and judicial proclivities, Barrett the person is very impressive.

Yet, after watching and reading about how the hearings have gone, both our impressions of Barrett's integrity have gone down. There is, of course, the simple matter of her accepting this nomination under the circumstances, though I'll concede how very difficult it would be for anyone to turn down a chance at reaching the pinnacle of the legal profession in this country. Then there are the complete weasel answers that she has given to straightforward questions of law and fact that can't be explained by anything other than her recognition that the president would not like the truthful answer. Can the President delay the election? Is it voter intimidation to station armed men outside polling stations? Is climate change a danger to life on this planet?

There are very easy statute- and fact-based answers to the above questions and yet Barrett couldn't bring herself to give the answers that she knows Trump would lose his mind over. And for what? Worst case, does she really think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage? We all know what a sham this whole nomination is given the circumstances and "precedent" set by Republicans, but perversely, because of the exceptionally narrow window of time that Republicans have to do this, there's hardly any time for Republicans to start the process all over again. In other words, does Barrett actually think Trump would withdraw her nomination at this stage if she responded to any of the above questions with what she must know are the actual factual answers? Those questions were such a golden opportunity for her to at least facially show that she's capable of acknowledging obvious fact and showing at least a modicum of independence from the Trump worldview but alas, she didn't even have the stones to do that. So even irrespective of her judicial views on abortion, gun rights, etc., she disqualified herself in my eyes and in the eyes of at least one of her former students.

---

Does your friend have a sense of whether she would bend to the other side on various issues, or is she a hardass *****?

---

helltopay1 said:

---

It's easy for Oak to wade into uncharted waters. When you're 6 foot ten and weigh 380 pounds, you know very few limits.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Wife - let's get real.
In this democracy, we reward Dark Money. Because too many Americans are too stupid to know that they are being completely played by advertising dollars.

---

Listen, in a thread purportedly about a Supreme Court nomination, I'm just enjoying an anarchist calling the liberal elites here fakes for wanting to end limits on SALT tax deductions. Now you want to say dark money is what, behind Justice mommy being on the Supreme Court? Where am I supposed to go with that? Okay, evil forces are at work here? Do you get that you posted Sheldon Whitehouse (what a great political name), a Democrat, urging a Supreme Court nominee to contemplate and possibly act to end a number of practices he called damaging to the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court when she sits on the Supreme Court? The Dems are throwing in the towel, and now trying to use their time to tell her how to act on the Supreme Court.


My friend that started this thread probably thought there was going to be an in depth discussion about constitutional issues. Instead, the discussion is reduced to if a judge should have a personal view on global warming rather than defer to scientists (thank you twitter moron DJ).

The Dems have a legit discussion on the process of nominating justices in election periods, but their whining is really is getting off message, as is this thread.

I do think procedural filibusters do impact judicial nominations (and legislation in general) and should be eliminated. At least some tangential relationship to the OP.

---

Look, no one is watching these hearings. No one gives a darn about any of the issues being raised. Under old rules, she should be confirmed because she is qualified. Under old rules Garland should have been confirmed because he is qualified. We aren't playing by old rules anymore. Her qualifications are irrelevant

Under new rules, she will be confirmed because the President and the Senate are the same party. That is it. end of story. Under new rules when their is a split between President and Senate, the vacancy will go unfilled until the President and Senate are of the same party. When the President and Senate is of the same party, they will nominate the most extreme candidate they can shove down the most moderate Senators in their party.

Period. End of story. For our entire history it was understood doing this would be bad because it would lead to the court being unfilled. Oh, well. The Constitution set up a process where the Congress and President determine by law how many justices are on the court. It determined that the appointments would be lifetime. It determined that the President gets to name a candidate and the Senate gets to say yes or no. Those are the written rules. All the unwritten rules are now in the trash.

If the Democrats get the votes, they need to play by the written rules and that is it. Republicans played their cards when they had power. The refused to give a nominee a hearing. They passed a tax bill specifically designed to increase the taxes on Democrats and give it to Republicans. They sent ununiformed federal agents into Democratic cities against the will of the people there. They tried to impede investigation of white supremacy groups. When a pandemic hit Blue states first, the said - let them die we'll just blame their political leaders. They have quietly shredded every protection at the federal agency level. They have spent the last 4 years using every political advantage to maximum effect. And they have done so because they believe Democrats will be wusses and "go high" when they have get into power. And, frankly, electing Trump was a big eff you to the Democrats and it has been clear that 90% of Republicans have loved every minute of it.

I liken this to the Russell White USC game. You want to be such asses when you are winning, you better keep winning. Otherwise, we will spend every minute singing "That is the only song you know" on your asses. After having Trump rub it in our faces and Republicans cheering him on the last 4 years, there is absolutely no appetite among Democratic rank and file for anything but responding in kind twice as hard. You don't want that to happen, win the game. If you do, we have no question in our minds you will spend the next 4 years making life as miserable as possible for us.

In game theory, generally the most successful strategy is to start with trust. If you opponent screws you, you screw them back harder to make sure they understand the consequences. If the Democrats get the votes, they need to add 4 judges on the court in retaliation for Garland. They need to gerrymander every district they can in retaliation for a gerrymandered House that requires the Democrats to win well over a majority to get a majority of seats. They need to vote through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico which will only partially counteract the advantages the Republicans have taken in the senate and electoral college. They need to take these advantages to stay on top because that is what their opponents would do. Then, maybe we can talk about working together.

This is a recurring theme in US politics. The South played every political trick in the book to maintain power over the more populous North in the first half of the 1800's. It is clear that there is no place for ethics in the game of politics. The Democrats need to get a clue on this. There is a difference between politics and governing. Govern ethically. I think that is something that we all agreed upon until 2016 and most of us still agree. Do what you think is best for the American people. When it comes to politics, do whatever you can to win. THEN govern ethically. Because what we saw the last 4 years was when you blow it, you run the risk of getting a selfish, egomaniacal ass who will not govern ethically and who will use every bit of power to reward his friends and screw the shyte out of those that disagree with him, namely you.

edit: To be clear, WIAF, "you" in this post is the general "you". Not referring to you specifically.

---

I would also add that on day 1 of the Biden administration they should pass a law to redo the census and do it correctly. The constitution wouldn't prohibit this. If SCOTUS blocks it, they pack the court and do it again.

---

SCOTUS ended the Census a few days ago. So yes, pack the court have a rehear.

---

Court said they could end the census, not that they had to. That has no bearing on how the court would rule if the government decided to do another census in 2021

---

While that is technically correct, I don't think that is how the SCOTUS order is being interpreted or practically viewed. The emergency request that the Justice Department made last week resulted in a 7 to 1 SCOTUS order, that clears the way for Trump to alter the count while in office by excluding unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to reallocate congressional seats and Electoral College votes for the next 10 years. If the deadline had been extended, Trump would have run out of time (assuming Biden wins).

What Trump will do was clearly stated in the arguments before the court, the SG never denied what Trump will do, and the losing side clearly believes this means SCOTUS will deny any objection to the 2020 census. Moreover, I'm not sure I buy that the Constitution does not prohibit the 2021 census, as being performed beyond the Constitution's 10 year mandate (and I don't think the court's likely composition of 3 strict constructionists, is going to be comfortable reading 10 years to mean 11 years, because the Dems think the census after 10 years sucks). That would not be the entire last word, as the 2021 Congress could pass legislation on how the state's redistrict meeds to include everyone (that doesn't change the electoral college, and would be subject to challenge), and that is what the law articles are suggesting will happen outside of the Dems packing SCOTUS to have a more receptive audience. Lot at stake riding on this election.

---

calpoly said:

---

Garou said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Garou said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cool Ice said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Very interesting. It has gotten awful quiet here on this thread. I think the Dems are also not showing with questions, not using their time, possibly opting to vote tomorrow night as well. Just get it over. Getting handed your backside ain't much fun.

---

There is nothing interesting about a foregone conclusion. Everyone knows the GOP is going to push this nomination through. The more interesting question will be what Democrats will do if and when they win back power.

---

What is interesting is how hard the Democrats didn't try to stop it That should tell you about how real their interest is in keeping her off the court (aka, none).

---

That's not interesting either. Democrats are in the minority and can't stop it.

---

Yes, because the Republicans have never been able to obstruct things with a minority. Even within a minority of their own party stopping the rest of their party.

---

Filibuster for SCOTUS nominees doesn't exist anymore.

---

They had other things they could have done besides a filibuster. They're more interesting in a token resistance pretending that they they are upset to pander to people like you.

---

Please enlighten us on the other things. I will wait for your response.

---